


NATURAL LAWIN THE 
—SPIRITUALWORLD 















THE 


James J. Wolfe 







Presented to 


TRINITY COLLEGE LIBRARY 
By Mrs. J. J. Wolfe 

















‘N7GS 












~ CONTENTS. 





PAGE, 


BFACE.cceceos TOPOS HHT SETH STEHT ESTERS DOTS 5 


EB DUCTION.««ceceeee eeeceetessatiasessasesanre 25 


San an ashes a setaueccsar os esas eswesst a 15 


Protease eee nnene 107 


NP cadniscecsevececa tee e er eesenarcenese 247 


MAREDSE SMS wines oe oh clsiceancsdabaas 277 








PREFACE. 


No class of works is received with more 
_ suspicion, I had almost said derision, than 
_ those which deal with Science and Religion. 
Science is tired of reconciliations between two 
"things which never should have been con- 
A trasted ; Religion is offended by the patronage 
ofan ally which it professes not to need ; and 
_ the critics have rightly discovered that, 
“most cases where Science is either pitted 
against Religion or fused with it, there is some) 
fatal misconception to begin with as to the 
ecspe and province of either. But although no 
initial protest, probably, will save this “work 
from the unhappy reputation of its class, the 
thoughtful mind will perceive that the fact 
of its subject-matter being Law—a property 
peculiar neither to Science nor to Religion—at 
ans places it on a somewhat different “footing. 
The. real problem I have set myself may be 
tstated in a sentence. Is there not reason to 
- believe that many of the Laws of the Spiritual 
_ World, hitherto regarded as occupying an en- 
e _ tirely separate province, are simply the Laws 
of the Natural World? Can we identify the 
i Natural | Laws, or any one of them, in the 


















































Spiritual sphere? That vag 
where run through the Spi 
already beginning | to be recogn 
sible to link them with those 


_ the Natural Laws, or are they. 

_ distinct? In a word, Is the 
- natural or unnatural? 

I may, perhaps, be allowed 
“questions in the form in which 
-swered themselves to myself. 
‘apologize at the outset for peng on 
which, but for the clearness they 
She statement, I would surely 
It has been my privilege for 
_ address regularly two very different 

_ on two very different themes. On 
a I have lectured toa class of stu 

"Natural Sciences, and on Sunday 
ence consisting for the most part. 
men on subjects of a moral and re 
acter. I cannot say that this collo 
i Berprared as a difficulty to myself, bu 
_ of my friends it was more than a p 
_ was solved to me, however, at fi 
then seemed the necessities of the | 
keep the two departments entire 
selves. They lay at opposite poles « of 
and for a time I succeeded in ke 
“Science and the Religion shut off 
another in two separate compartm 
mind. But gradually the wall iy 
showed symptoms of giving way. — 
fountains of knowledge also. slowly 
























flow, and finally their waters met and min- 
_ gled. Thegreat change was in the compartment 
which held the Religion. It was not that the 
well-there was driéd; stillless that the ferment- 
ing waters were washed away by the flood of 
Science. The actual contents remained the 
ame. Butthe crystals of former doctrine were 
issolved ; and as they precipitated themselves 
once more in definite forms, I observed that the 
‘Crystalline System was changed, New chan- 
nels also for outward expression opened, and 
_ some of the old closed. up; and I -found the 
truth running out to my audience on the Sun- 
_ days by the weekday outlets. In other words, 
a the subject-matter Religion had taken on the 
Br ‘method of expression ‘of Science, and I dis- 
~ covered myself enunciating Spiritual Law in 
_ the exact terms of Biology and Physics. 
_ Now this was not simply a scientific color- 
_ ing given to Religion, the mere freshening of 
the theological air with natural facts and illus- 
trations. It was an entire re-casting of truth. 
And when I came seriously to consider what 
it involved, I saw, or seemed to see, that it 
meal v ecsentially the introduction of Natural 
‘Law into the Spiritual World. It was not, I 
epeat, «.at new and detailed analogies of 
-henomena rose into view—although material 
for Parable lics unnoticed and unused on the 
field of recent Science in inexhaustible pro- 
fusion. But Law has a still grander function 
to discharge towards Religion than Parable. 
There is a deeper unity between the two King- 
_ doms than the analogy of their Phepomena—a 
































ih : unity which the poet’s vis 
the theologian’s, has already 


And verily many thinkers of ths 
Aye, many Christian teachers, hal 
Are wrong in just my sense, W 
Our natural world too insularly as if 
No spiritual counterpart come 
Consummating its meaning, round 
To justice and. perfection, line 
Form by form, nothing single nv 
The great below clenched by the 








The function of Parable 
exhibit “form by form.” Law1 
profounder task of comparing 
-Thus Natural Phenomena s 
illustrative function in Religion tam 
on the other hand, could it be 
Spiritual World, would have 
scientific value—it would offer I 
credential. The effect of the in 
Law among the scattered Phenomet 
has simply been to make Science. 
knowledge into eternal truth. 
tallizing touch is needed in Reli 
be said that the Phenomena o 
World are other than scattered 
our eyes to the fact that the rel 
of mankind are in a state of flux? — 
we regard the uncertainty of eu 
the war of creeds, the havoe of 
well as of idle doubt, the reluct 
ment of early faith by those wh 


’ 





1 aurora Leigh. 





5 


es 


longer if they could, is it not plain that the 
one thing thinking menare waiting for is the 
- introduction of Law among the Phenomena of 
the Spiritual World? When that comes we 
‘shall offer to such men a truly scientific the- 
ology. And the Reign of Law will transform 
the whole Spiritual World as it has already 
‘transformed the Natural World. 






PREFACE. 


I confess that even when in the first dim 


- yision, the organizing hand of Law moved 
' among the unordered truths of my Spiritual 
~ World, poor and scantily-furnished as it was, 
there seemed to come over it the beauty ofa 
transfiguration. The change was as great as 
from the old chaotic world of Pythagoras to the 
symmetrical and harmonious universe of New- 
ton. My Spiritual World before was a chaos — 
- of facts; my Theology, a Pythagorean system 
trying to make the best of Phenomena apart 
rom the idea of Law. I make no charge 
' against Theology in general. I speak of my 


- own. And I say that I saw it to be in many 


_ Ihave alluded to the genesis of the idea in 


a 


essential respects centuries behind every de- 
' partment of Science I knew. It was the one 

region still unpossessed by Law. I saw then 
why men of Science distrust Theology; why 


e who have learned to look upon Law as 
uthority grow cold to it—it was the Great 


_ Exception. : 


wits naturalness. Certainly I nevet pre- 
ditated anything to myself so objectionable 
id so unwarrantable in itself, as either to read. 





















own mind partly for another reason—to— 


a“ 






“Ther ogy into Science or Scien ce 
Woth.ng could be more artificial th: 
Whis on the speculative side ; and 
ssubstantial relief to me throughou: 
Hdea rose up thus in the course « 
work and shaped itself day by « 
ee Psy: It might be chara? 












- unconsciously, simply readingmy The 
» my Science. And as this would 
a)  'Vitiate re conclusions arrived at, Im 






























ies “have Abeeel more fearful throu 
nay: making Nature parallel with m 
e “any creed, The only legitimate” 
A dare put to Nature are those wh 
Si varsal human good and the Divin ) 
‘tation of things. These I concei 
there actually studied at first-hand, a1 
‘their purity is soiled by human t 
thave Truth in Nature as it came 
And it has to be read with the same 
mind, the same open eye, the same 
: *he same reverence as-all other R 
'\ All that is found there, whatever if 
_ ‘Theology, whatever its orthodox 
‘doxy, whatever its narrowness 4 
wwe are bound to acceptas Doctrin 
son the lines of Science there is no 
When this presented itself to me 
Z felt it to be due to it—were it on 
_ #o far as that was possible, that no fo: 
_ should interfere with the integrity of t 
—io begin again at the beginning % 
































ee my Pe pitti World Byll by step. The 
-. ult of that inquiry, so far as its expression 
in systematic form is concerned, I have not 
~ given in this book. To reconstruct a Spiritual 
- Religion, or a department of Spiritual Religion 
_ —for this is all the method can pretend to—on 
m the lines of Nature would be an attempt fron 
- which one better equipped in both cirections 
_ might well be pardoned if he shrank. My 
“Ra object at present is the humbler one of ventur- 
ing a simple contribution to practical Religion 
along the lines indicated. What Bacon predi- 
 eates of the Natural World, Nutura enim non 
~ nist i parendo vincitur, is also tru, as Christ had 
_ already told us, of the Spiritual World. And 
~ I present a few samples of the religious veach- 
ing referred to formerly as having been pre- 
pared under the influence of scientific ideas in 
the hope that they may be useful first of all in 
_ this direction. 
- I would, however, carefully point out that 
_ though their unsystematic arrangement here 
may “create the impression that these papers 
are merely isolated readings in Religion pointed 
by casual scientific truths, they are organically 
connected by a single principle. Nothing could 
be more false both to Science and to Religion 
han attempts to adjust the two spheres by 
making outi ingenious points of contact in detail. 
_ The solution of this great question of concilia-_ 
ion, if one may still refer to a problem s@ 
tuitous, must be general rather than par- 
lar. The basis in a common principle—the 
nuity of Law—can alone save specifice 












_ or exempt fhe from the 1 ve 
hybrid between tw. things whi 
related by tho deepest affinities 7 
_ ever separate. i ea 
To the objection that even a ba: 
no warrant for so great a trespas 
trusion into another field of the 
principles of Natural Science, 
that in this I find I am followin 
in other departments has not onl 
lowed but has achieved results 2 
were unexpected. What is — 
- Politic of Mr. Walter Bagehot 
sion of Natural Law to the Polit 
What is the Biological Sociolo 
* Herbert Spencer, but the applieat 
ural Law to the Social World? 
- wharged that the splendid ach 
such thinkers are hybrids betw 
which Nature has meant to re 
Nature usually solves such prob 
self. Inappropriate hybridism is ¢ 
the Law of Sterility. Judged by 
‘Law, these modern developments 
edge stand uncondemned. Withi 
sphere the results of Mr. Herbert & 
far from sterile—the application of B: 
Political Economy is already revolu 
the Science. If the introduction of 
Law ilk the Social sphere is no Vi 










































aed) a 13 
Does not the principle of Continuity demand iis 
. application in every direction? ‘To carry itasa 
» working principle into so lofty.a region may 
ppear impracticable. Difficulties lie on: the 
ireshold which may seem, at first sight, insur- 
mountable. But obstacles to a true method 
only test its validity. And he who honestly 
faces the task may find relief in feeling that 
- whatever else of crudeness and imperfection 
mar it, the attempt is at least in harmony 
- with the thought and movement of his time. 

_-That these papers were not designed to ap- 
i pear in a collective form, or indeed to court 
_ the more public light at all, needs no dis- 
_ losure. They are published out of regard to 
_ the wish of known and unknown friends by 
_ whom, when in a fugitive form, they were re- 
ceived with so curious an interest as to make 
one feel already that there are minds which 
_ such forms of truth may touch. In making 
_ the present selection, partly from manuscript, 
‘and partly from articles already published, I 
have been guided less by the wish to constimte 
the papers a connected series than to exhibit 
the application of the principle in various 
direction. They will be found, therefore, of 
unequal interest and value, according to the 
standpoint from which they are regarded, 
Thus some are designed with a directly prac- 
» tieal and popular bearing, others being more 
- expository, and slightly apologetic in tone. 
The risk of combining two objects so very 
ifferent is somewhat serious. But, for the 
n named, having taken this responsibility, 


er Oe. SpRersacn, 




















































PREFACE. 


the only compensation [ can 
indicate which of the papers im 
one side or to the other. “D 
~ “Growth,” “ Mortification,” “ Co 
hy “Type,” “ Semi-Parasitism,” and “] 
- belong to the more practical order; an 
' one or two are intermediate, © Bic 

“Death,” and “ Eternal-Life! ” may 








Vv . to those who find the atmosphere of th 
ey uncongenial. It will not disguise its 
ss that, owing to the cireumstan 


4 
ad 


_ they were prepared, all the paj 


_ or less practical in their aim; s 






_ merely philosophical reader the 


“greatest diffidence—the Introductory 
In the Introduction, which the ge 
Phi. er may do well to ignore, I have b 

_ the case for Natural Law in the” 
- World. The extension of Analog 
or rather the extension of the 


_ selves, so far as known to me, is 1 






Pe 

surveyed land. So general has been 
vey that I- have not even paused 
_ specifically to what departments of 
 itnal World exclusively the principle 


eaution. One thing is certain, and IT 
pointedly, the application of Natural 
the Spiritual World has decided and 
_ sary limits. And if elsewhere with 
























en siasm I seem to waaay the principle at 
stake, the exag ggeration—like the extreme am- 
lification of fhe moon’s disk when near the 
orizon—must be charged to ‘that almost nec- 
essary aberration of light which distorts every 
new idea while it is yet slowly climbing to its 
zenith. 
In what follows the Introduction, except in 
the setting, there is nothing new. I trust 
there is nothing new. When I began to fol- 
Jow out these lines, I had no idea where they 
‘would lead me. I was prepared; nevertheless, 
at least for the time, to be loyal to the method 
throughout, and share with Nature whatever 
‘consequences might ensue. But in almost 
_ every case, after stating what appeared to be 
the truth in words eather ed, directly from the 
lips. of Nature, I was sooner or later startled 
by a certain similarity in the general idea to 
omething I had heard before, and this often 
; eveloped i in a moment, and when I was least 
_ expecting it, into recognition of some familiar 
article of faith. I was not watching for this 
esult. I did not begin by tabulatine the doc-_ 


proceed with the attempt to pair them. The 
-_-‘ majority of them seemed at first too far removed 
i from the natural world even to suggest this. 
_ Still less did I begin with doctrines and work 
downwards to find their relations in the nat- 
ral sphere. It was the opposite process en- 
irely. I ran up ike Natural Law as far as it 


? 


ae m even loomed in ein till I had meee 












oo) 

the top. Then it burst into v 
-. moment. Sg 
I can scarcely now say wh 
moments I was more overcome 







so like Nature. Nature, it is true, is 
Revelation—a much greater part do 

is yet believed—and one could have 
nothing but harmony here. But #] 
rived Theology, in spite of the 
verbiage which has gathered r 
be at bottom and in all cardin 
faithful a transcript of “the t 
Nature” came as a surprise, and 
as a rebuke. How, under the 
of incorporating in its system 
seemed nearly unintelligible, an 
was barely credible, Theology h 
so periectly in adhering through g 
and ill to what in the main are truly 1 
of Nature, awakens a new admirati 
- who constructed and kept this faith: 
however nobly it has held its ground 
ology must feel to-day that the mode 
calls for a further proof. Nor will 
Theology resent this demand ; it also 
it. Theology is searching on every 
another echo of the Voice of which 
also is the echo, that out of the mo 
witnesses its truths should be @& 
That other echo can only come fr 
Hitherto its voice has been muffled. 
that Science has made the world aro 




















































‘PREFACE. ~ 17 


i Lie it speaks to Religion with a twofold pur 
pose. Inthe first place it offers to cocroborate 
Theology, in the second to purify it. 
~~~ Jf the removal of suspicien from Theology 

is of urgent moment, not less important is the 
_ removal ofits adulterations. These suspicions, 
many of them at least, are new; in a sense 
they mark progress. But the adulterations 
are the artificial accumulations of centuries of 
uncontrolled speculation. They are the neces- 

‘sary result of the old method and the warrant 

_ for its revision—they mark the impossibility 
of progress without the guiding and restrain- 
ing hand of Law. The felt exhaustion of the 
former method, the want of corroboration for 

- the old evidence, the protest of reason against 

the monstrous overgrowths which conceal the 
real lines of truth, these summon us to the 
search for a surer and more scientific system. 

With truths of the theological order, with 
~ dogmas which often depend for their existence 

on a particular exegesis, with propositions 
which rest for their evidence upon a balance 
of probabilities, or upon the weight of author- 
ity; with doctrines which every age and 
nation may make or unmake, which each sect 
may tamper with, and which even the individ- 
ual may modify for himself, a second court 
of appeal has become an imperative necessity. 
Science, therefore, may yet have to be ealled 
upon to arbitrate at some points between con- 
flicting creeds. And while there-are some 
departments of Theology where its jurisdiction 
nee be sought. there are others in whicu 





7 
e 








































PREFACE. 


Nature may yet have to define the 
well as the limits of belief. feed 

~ What I would desire especi 
-ful consideration of the methc 
cations ventured upon here ma 
or unsuccessful. But they w 
satisfy me if they suggested a mi 
whose less clumsy hands might work 3 
da 





more profitably. For Iam convine 

- fertility_of such a method at the 

Itis recognized by all that the youn, 

abler minds of this age find the mi 

difficulty in accepting or retaining | 

* forms of belief. Especially is 

those whose culture is scient 

_ reason is palpable. No man can 

Sei nce without a change coming 

of truth. What impresses him al 

is its solidity. He is there standin 

“actual things, among fixed laws. An 

integrity of the scientific method sos 
that all other forms of truth begin 

comparatively unstable. He did 

' before that any form of truth cou 

_ him; and the immediate effect is t 

- interest in all that stands on other 

he feels in spite of himself; he s 

" against it in vain; and he finds perhaps 

alarm that he is drifting fast into 

at first like pure Positivism. This } 
evitable result of the scientific train 

quite erroneous to suppose that sci 

overthrows Faith, if by that is impli 

any natural truth can oppose succes: 


yee” 


y 


PREFACE. gd 19 










. Denote spiritual truth. Science cannot over- 

- throw Faith; but it shakes it. Its own doc- 
 trines, grounded in Nature, are so certain, 
_ that the truths of Religion, resting to most men 
on Authority, are felt to be strangely insecure. 
- The difficulty; therefore, which men of Science 
feel about Religion is real and inevitable, and 
in so far as Doubt is a conscientious tribute to 
' the inviolability of Nature it is entitled to 

_ respect. 

None but those who have passed through it 
ean appreciate the radical nature of the change 
wrought by Science in the whole mental atti- 
tude of its disciples. What they really ery 
out for in Religion is a new standpoint—a 
standpoint like their own. The one hope, 
therefore, for Science is more Science. Again, 
- to quote Bacon—we shall hear enough from 
the moderns by and by—“ This I dare affirm 
in knowledge of Nature, that a little natural 
i philosophy, ‘and the first entrance into it, doth 
a _ dispose the opinion to atheism; but, on the 
' ~ other side, much natural philosophy, and wad- 
_ ing deep into it, will bring about men’s minds 
4 _ to religion.” 1 

man Che application of similia stmilibus eurantur 
‘Was never more in point. If this is a disease, 
it is the disease of Nature, and the cure is 
RE more Nature. For what is this disquiét in 
the breasts of men, but the loyal fear that 
i _ Nature is being violated? Men must oppose 
ae “es every energy they possess what seems to 





i 
bw sg 
“3 
P 
43 
o 


1“* Meditationes Sacre,” x. 











And the first igi in their deliver 
not to reconcile P? Baie and. Bee g 










vince them that Here’ is no contr 
tween Religion and Science is inst ile 
‘mere flag of truce, in the nature of the 
is here fe ea 5 at aes it-is isd xe 







bility of ibs athe or works 
emain neutral with regard to 
ust. either extend his” method 











the other hand, no one who knows. 
tent of Christianity, or feels the 's 
need of a Religion, can stand idly by ™ 
_ the intellect of his age is slowly divorein 
self from it. What is required, theref 
draw Science and Religion together as 
for they began the centuries hand in hand 
the disclosure of the naturalness of | 
natural. Then, and not till then, will 
how true it is, that to be loyal to all o 
they must be loyal to the part define 
- itual. No science contributes to ano 
out receiving a reciprocal benefit. 4 
as the contribution of Science to Religic 
the vindication of the naturalness of the 
natural, so the gift of Religion to Scien 
the demonstration of the supernaturalness - 
the Natural. Thus, as the Supernat ra 
comes slowly Natural, will also the Es at 



























































en mai of ees ‘men. ok Voth 
recognize the Authority of God. 

_ To those who already find themselves fully 
“nourished on the older forms of truth, I do 
not commend these pages. They will find 
them superfluous. Nor is there any reason 
why they-should mingle with light which is 
already clear the distorting rays of a foreign 
expression. 

But to those eis are feeling their way to a. 
Christian life, haunted now by a sense of in- 
stability in the foundations of their faith, now 
_ brought to bay by specific doubt at one point 
raising, as all doubt does, the question for the 
whole, I would hold up a light which has 
often been kind tome. There is asense of 
solidity about a Law of Nature which belongs 
to nothing else in the world. Here, at last, 
amid all that is shifting, is one thing sure ; 
one thing outside ourselves, unbiassed, unprej- 
udiced, ‘uninfluenced by like or dislike, by 
doubt or fear; one thing that holds on its 
“Way to me eternally, incorruptible, and unde- 

ed. This, more than anything’ else, makes 
one eager to see the Reign of Law traced in the 

_ Spiritual Sphere. And should this seem to 
_ some to offer only a surer, but not a higher 
a Faith; should the better or dering of the Spir- 
» itual World appear to satisfy the intellect at 
- the sacrifice of reverence, simplicity, or love ; 
especially should it seem to substitute a Reign 
of Law and a Lawgiver for a Kingdom “of 




























- ANALYSIS OF INTRODUCTION. 
f ‘ [For the cake” of the pereihs reader who may desire to 
‘* i at once to the practieal application, the following out- 


f the Introduction—devoted rather to general principles 
| ~is here presented.] 





‘ PART I. 
NATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRITUAL SPHERE, 


1. The growth of the Idea of Law. 
_ @. Its gradual extension throughout every depariaient of 
Knowledge. 
8. Except one, Religiow hitherto the Great Exception. 
| Why so? 
4, Previous attempts to trace analogies between the 
Natural and Spiritual spheres. These haye been 
limited to analogies between Phenomena ; and are 
useful mainly as illustrations. Analogies of Law 
_ would also have a Scientific value. 
oS eg that value would consist. (1) The Scienti- 
_ fie demand of the age would be met; (2) Greater 
~ clearness would be introduced into Religion prac- 
tically ; (8) Theology, instead of resting on oe 
thority, would rest “equally on Nature. 


PART II. 
“Toe Law or Continuity. 


A oat argument for Natural a! in the Spiritual 
<eHs orld. 

yet) 1. 1 The Law Discovered. 

rete ‘Defined. 

3. “* Applied. é, 

4, The objection answered that the material of the Na- 
tural and Spiritual worlds being different they 
f must be under different Laws. 

8, The existence of Laws in the Spiritual World other 
than the Natural Laws (1) improbable, (2) unnee- 
essary, (3) unknown. Qualification. 

6. The Spiritual not the projection upwards of the Na- 
wet tural ; but the Natural the projection ei ine ee ps 
of the Spiritual. 


: 





| «This method turns aside from hy 
tested by any known logical canon li 
_ wheither the hypothesis claims support 











themselves to be lawless, which prof 
the field of law. We say, life and cor 


3 intelligence in the methods known to us 
_ loyic, methods which the intellect can analy 
» you confront us with hypotheses, however 
however affecting, if they cannot be st 
of the rest of our knowledge, if they are dispai 








“that world of sequence and sensation w 1 to 
the ultimate base of all our real knowledg é 
~ shake our heads and turn aside.” 



















| ‘, INTRODUCTION. 


** Ethical science is already forever completed, so far 
as her general outline and main principles are concerned, 
and has been, as it were, waiting for physical science to 
- come up with her.” —Paradozical Philosophy. 


z 


- Natvurat Law is a new word. Itis the last 
and the most magnificent discovery of science, 
‘a No more telling proof is open to the modern » 
_ world of the greatness of the idea than the 
' greatness of the attempts which have always 
been made to justify it. In the earlier cent- 
uries, before the birth of science, Phenomena 
were studied alone. The world then was a 
edhos, a collection of single, isolated, and inde- 
pendent facts. Deeper thinkers saw, indeed, 
that relations must subsist between these 
_ facts, but the Reign of Law was never more to 
_ the ancients than a far-off vision. Their phi- 
Paschphios conspicuously those of the Stoies and 
_ Pythagoreans, heroically sought to marshal 
the ‘diserete materials of the universe into 
thinkable form, but from these artificial and 
fantastic systems nothing remains to us now 












































but an ancient testimony to th 
~ that harmony which they failed te 

With Copernicus, Galileo, ai 
first regular lines of the univ 
discerned. When Nature yiel 
her great secret, Gravitation was- 
not greater as a fact in itself than as” 
tion that Law was fact. And t 3 
search for individual Phendthen : 
_ before the larger study of their relat 
i pursuit of Law became the passion ¢ 
> What that discovery of Law ha 
- Nature, it is impossible to i 


beauty so transcendent that he v 
- himself by scientific work fi 
a Bese Las reward simply to behol 
_ these Laws one stands face to face 1 
~ solid and unchangeable. Each s 
an instrument of scientific resed 
its adjustments, universal in its ap 
infallible in its results. And despi 
ations of its sphere on every side 
the largest, richest, and sures 
human knowledge. 

It is not necessary for the pre ; 
than lightly touch on definitions 
Law. The Duke of Argyll * imdic 
senses in which the word js used, but wi 
content ourselves here by ta.c.ng it it 
simple and obvious significance. T 
mental conception of Law is ana 





1° Reign of Law,” chap. ii. 






IN TROD vOTI ON. 
























- wor ing sequence of constant order among the 
: Phenomena of Nature. This impression of 
Law as order it is important to receive in its 
simplicity, for the idea is often corrupted by 
- having attached to it erroneous views of cause 
and effect. In its true sense Natural Law 
predicates nothing of causes. The Laws of 
Nature are simply statements of the orderly 
condition of things in Nature, what is found 
in Nature by a sufficient number of competent 
observers. What these Laws are in them- 
Selves is not agreed. That they have any 
absolute existence even is far from certain. 
They are relative to man in his many limita- 
tions, and represent for him the constant ex- 
; ‘ pression of what be may always expect to find 
in the world around him. But that they have 
any causal connection with the things around 
himi is not to be conceived. The Natural Laws ° 
originate nothing, sustain nothing; they are 
jmerely responsible for uniformity in sustain- 
ing what has been originated and what is be- 
ing sustained. They are modes of operation, 
therefore, not operators ; processes, not powers. 
The Law of Gravitation, for instance, speaks 
to science only of process. It has no light 
_to offer as to itself. Newton did not discover 
-Gravity—that is not discovered yet. He dis- 
covered its Law, which is Gravitation, but 
that tells us nothing of its origin, of its 
nature, or of its cause. 
_ .The Natural Laws then are ee lines run- 



























like parallels of latitude to int | 
In themselves, be it once more r 
may have no more absolute exi 
allels of latitude. But they : 
They are drawn for us to unde 
by some Hand that drew the whole; 
_ perhaps, that, understanding the p 
in time may learn to understan 
Now the inquiry we propose to a 
solves into the simple question, Do 
stop with what we call the Natui 
Ts it not possible that they mz b | 
Is it probable that the Han 
them gave up the work where mo} 
were required? Did that Hane 
world into two, a cosmos and a_ 
higher being the chaos? With Na 
~ symbol of all of harmony and 
known to man, must we still talk of 
natural, not as a convenient wor 
different order of world, an wt 
_ world, where the Reign of Mysn : 
the Reign of Law ? ‘ 
This question, let it be carcfully. 
applies to Laws not to Phenomena. 
Phenomena of the Spiritual World a 
analogy with the Phenomena of the N 
World requires no restatement. Si 
enunciated his doctrine of the Cave or 
twice-divided line; since Christ spake 
bles; since Plotinus wrote of the wo 
imaged i image; since the mysticism of Sy 
“srg; since Bacon and Pascal; since “; 
fresartus,” and “7n Memoriam,” it 





_ the world are. jena seen, being understood 
Cres the things that are made.” » Milton’s ques- 
_ tion— 
= ““ What if earth . 
Be but the shadow of heaven, and ‘‘)ings therein 
Each to other like more than on earth is thought ?” 


is now superfluous. “In our doctrine of 
_ representations and correspondences,” says 
_ Swedenbors, “we shall treat of both these 
‘eo _ symbolical | and typical + emblances, and of 
~ the astonishing things that occur, I will not 
say in the living body only, but thr ighout 
_ Nature, and which correspond so entirely to 
supreme and spiritual thines, that one would, 
swear that the physical world was purely sym- 
_ bolical of the spiritual world.’? And Carlyle: 
«All visible things are emblems. What thou 
~ seest is not there on its own account ; strictly 
_ speaking, is not there at a!. Matter exists 

- only spiritually, and to represent some idea 
and body it forth.”? 

But the analogies of Law are a totally dif- 
ferent thing from the analogies of Phenomena 
and have a very different value. To say 
_ generally, with Pascal, that “La nature est 


Sond 





une image de la grace,” is merely to be poeti- 


_ eal. The function of Hervey’s “ Meditations 


| 





in a Flower Garden,” or, Flavel’s “ Husbandry 
Sonam ” is mainly homiletical. That 


1** Animal Kingdom.’ 
* ‘2 Sartor Resartus,”’ 1858 ed., p. 43. 











The place of parable in teaching, a 
after the sanction of the greatest of 
- must always be recognized. The ve 
- ties of language indeed demand this m 
resenting truth. The temporal i 
and framework of the eternal, an 
can be uttered only through things... ni 
But analogies between Phenome 
the same relation to anuldgies of | Li 
Phenomena themselves bear to 
light of Law on truth, as we have™ 
immense adyance upon the light of P. 
The discovery of Law i is simply. , 
_ of Science. And i* the analogies of 
_ Law can be extended to the Sue 
ol whole region at once falls withi 



























: 1 Even parable, however, has alyays been 
' to have attached to it a measure of evidential as Wi 
of illustrative value. Thus. ‘‘ The parable o1 
_ analogy to spiritual truth appropriated from 
of nature or man, is not mercly illustrative, bu 
some sort proof. It is not merely that thes 
assist to make the truth intelligible of, if 
_ before, present it more vividly to the mind "y 
_ that some will allow them. Their power 
than this, in the harmony unconsciously felt by 
and which all deeper minds have delig 
between the natural and spiritual worlds, so t 
gies from the first are felt to be something mot 
illustrations happily but yet arbitrarily ehosen. 
are arguments, and may be alleged as witness 
world of nature being throughout : a witness for 1 
of spirit, proceeding from the same hand, 
of the same root, and being constituted ‘tor t 
“pend.” (Archbishop Trench ;.* Parables,” pp. 1 































an” pit eedentsnd in the ‘coustitution and 
rse of Nature. All, therefore, that has 
en claimed for parable can be predicated 
wtiort of this—with the addition that a proof 
the basis of Law would want no criterion 
possessed by the most advanced science. 

- That the validity of analogy generally has 
been seriously questioned one must frankly 
own. Doubtless there is much difficulty and 
even liability to gross error in attempting to 
establish analogy in specific cases. The value 
_ of the likeness appears differently to different 
*) “minds, and in discussing an individual instan 

- questions of relevancy will invariably crop a7 4 
_ Of course, in the language of John Stuart Mill, 
“€ywhen the analog ey can be proved, the argu- 
ment founded upon it cannot be resistec ur 
_ But so great. is the difficulty of proof that’ 
“many are compelled to attach the most inferior 
_ weight to analogy as a method of reasoning. 
Mid Analogical evidence i is generally more success- 


Diath, Though it rarely refutes it frequently 
repels refutation; like those weapons which 
_ though they cannot kill the enemy, will ward 
his blows. . . It must be allowed that ana- 
logical evidence is at least but a feeble sup- 
_ port, and is hardly ever honored with the 
name of proof.”? \ Other authorities on the 
other hand, such as Sir William Hamilton, 
admit analogy to a primary place in logic and 
regard it as the very basis of induction. 


1Mill’s ‘* Logic,”’ vol. ii. p. 96 
2Campbell’s ‘ BE ETAC, vol. i. p. 114, 





382 





































But, fortunately, we a: 
_ sion on this worn subject, 
sons. For one thillg, we 
Nature directly to prove RB 
never itsfunction. Its fun 
And this, after all, is poss 
ful proof. The best proof 
we see it; if we do not see i 
will not convince us of it. 
the discerning faculty, the clai 
of seeing the eternal in the tet 
than the failure of the reason, th 
sceptic. But secondly, and more 
a significant circumstance ha 
account, which, though it 
clearly afterwards, may be stated 
The position we have been led to ta 
that the Spiritual Laws are analog 
Natural Laws, but that they a@re. 
It is not a question of analogy 
The Natural Laws are not th 
images of the Spiritual in the | 
autunin is emblematical of Decs 
ing leaf of Death. The Natur. 
Law of Continuity might well warn 
stop with the visible and then give 
new set of Laws bearing a stron; 
them. The Laws of the invisib 
' Laws, projections of the natural 
ural, Analogous Phenomena are not’ 
of parallel Laws’, but of the same Law 
which at one end, as it were, ma 
with. Matter, at the other end wit 
there will be some inconvenience, 








igh. mNTRoDUCTION. ~~ 33 


dispensing with the word analogy, we shall 
d continue occasionally to employ it. Those 
_ who apprehend the real relation will mentally 
substitute the larger term. ; 
- Let us now look for a moment at the pres- 
ent state of the question. Can it be said that 
the Laws of the Spiritual World are in any 
sense considered even to have analogies with 
the Natural World? Here and there certainly 
one finds an attempt, and a successful attempt, 
to exhibit on a rational basis one or two of 
the great Moral Principles of the Spiritual 
World. But the Physical World has not been 
appealed to. Its magnificent system of Laws 
‘remains outside, and its contribution meanwhile 
_ is either silently ignored or purposely set aside. 
The Physical, it is said, is too remote from the 
Spiritual. The Moral World may afford a 
basis for religious truth, but even this is often 
the baldest concession ; while the appeal to 
the Physical universe is everywhere dismissed 
as, on the face of it, irrelevant and unfruitful. 
_¥rom the scientific side, again, nothing has 
_ been done to court a closer fellowship. Science 
_has taken theology at its own estimate. It is 
a thing apart. The Spiritual World is not 
only a different world, but a different kind of 
a world, a world arranged ona totally different 
principle, under a different governmenta, 
- scheme. 
_ The Reign of Law has gradually crept into 
every department of Nature, transforming 
knowledge everywhere into Science. The proc- 
ess goes on, and Nature slowly appears tous as 


fal 















































one great unity, until the b 
ual World are reached. T 
Continuity ceases, and the ha 
down. And men who have leat 
mentary lessons truly from the 
the lower Laws, going on to see 
knowledge, are suddenly confront 
Great Exception. 

Even those who have exam 
fully the relations of the N, 
Spiritual, seem to have comm 
deliberately to a final separati 
Law. It is a surprise to find st 
Horace Bushnell, for instance,: 
Spiritual World as “ anothers 
incommunicably separate. 
further defining it thus» 
erected another and higher : 
spiritual being and covstitea 
nature exists; a system not ur 
cause and effect, but ruled 
under other kinds of laws.” 
shown more insight than Bushn 
ing Spiritual truth from the N 
but he has not only failed to 
analogy with regard to Law, but: 
denies it. 

In the recent literature of this 
there nowhere seems any ady 
position of “Nature and the Su 
All are agreed in speaking of Na 
Supernatural. Nature iz the Sy 





1“ Nattire and the Supernatural,’ 





















ras Laws are ganceeuen: is still an Ee 
the: 
“The Scientific Basis of Faith” is a sug- 
stive title. The accomplished author an- 
unces that the object of his investigation is 
9 show that “the world of nature and mind, 
“as made known by science, constitute a basis 
ind a preparation for that highest moral and 
piritual life of man, which is evoked by the 
sclf-revelation of God.”! On the whole, Mr. 
M urphy seems to be more philosophical and 
nore profound in his view of the relation of 
jence and religion than any writer of modern 
imes. His conception of religion is broad and 
ofty, his acquaintance with science, adequate. 
He makes constant, admirable, and often 
original use of analogy ; and yet, in spite of , 7 
the promise of this quotation,-he has failed to 
dany analogy-in that department of Law 
ere surely, of all others, it might most rea- 
sonably be looked for. In the broad subject 
even of the analogies of what he defines 
.“ evangelical religion » with Nature, Mr. 
urphy discovers nothing. Nor can this be 
aced either to short-sight or over-sight. The 
subject occurs to him more than once, and he 
deliberately dismisses it—dismisses it not 
erely as unfruitful, but with a distinct denial 
ts relevancy. The memorable paragraph 
from Origen which forms the text of Butler’s 
Analogy,” he calls “this shallow and false 


“1The Scientific Basis of Faith.” By J. J. Murphy, 


PA 














s 


/ 




























saying.” 1 Te says: 
Butler’s scheme of religious - 
then to be the analoyy of ret 
evangelical, to the constitution 
does this give altogether a t 
Does this double analogy really 
justice is natural law among be 
a moral nature, there is the el 
between the constitution of nature 
legal religion. Legal religion is 
sion of natural justice into a fata : 
But is this true of eva 
Have the doctrines of Diving 
support in the analogies of 
not.” 2, And with reference to 
tion, speaking of immortality, 
es the analogies of mere nature 
the doctrine of immortality.” % 
With regard to Butler’s great 
- department, it is needless at this 
.to point out that his: aims did not _ 
in this direction. He did not seek to™ 
analogies between religion and the 
and course of Nature. His theme 
Analogy of Religion to the cons 
course of Nature.” And althoug 
out direct analogics of Pheno 


r 
He 


and the doctrine of a future state ; 
he showed that “the natural an 
stitution and government of the wor 
connected as to make up together 1 


2 Op. cit., p. 333. 7 Ibid., p. 333, 2] 




















onstruct arguments as to repel objections. 
His emphasis accordingly was laid upon the 
- difficulties of the two schemes rather than on 
_ their positive lines ; and so thoroughly has he 
made out his point, that, as is well known, the 
effect upon many has been, not to lead them to 
cept the Spiritual World on the ground of 
the Natural, but to make them despair of both. 
Butler lived at a time when defence was more 
necessary than construction, when the mate- 
rials for construction were scarce and insecure, 
and when, besides, some of the things to be 
defended were quite incapable of defence. 
Notwithstanding this, his influence over the 
- whole field since has been unparalleled. — 

_ After all, then, the Spiritual World, as it ap- 
_ pears at this moment, is outside Natural Law. 
Theology continues to be considered, as it has 
always been, a thing apart. It remains: still 
a stupendous and splendid construction, but on 
lines altogether its own. Now is Theology to 
be blamed for this. Nature has been long in 
speaking; even yet its voice is low, sometimes 


. 


ry 


Theology had to wait patiently for its develop- 
ment. As the highest of the sciences, The- 
_ ology in the order of evolution should be the 
~ last to fall intovrrank. It is reserved for it to 
perfect the finalharmony. Still, if it continues 
- longer to remain a thing apart, with increasing 
-Teason will be such protesis as this of the 


«** Analogy.”’ chap. vii. 


inaudible. Science is the true defaulter, for 


eme,” 1 his real intention was not so much 































« Unseen Universe,” when, i 
view of miracles held by an 
declares :—“ lf he submits 
such interpreters, each intel! 
forever continue to be baffled 
to explain these phenomena, 
said to have no physical r 
that went before or that follo 
they are made to form a univ 
verse, a portion cut off by | 
able barrier from the a 
inquiry.” ? 

This is the secret of the pr 
Religion in the world of Se 
ean bear nothing of a Great ] 
structions on unique lines, 
by an insurmountable barrie 
of scientific inquiry,” it dare n 
Nature has taught it this } 
is right. It is the province of | 
cate “Nature here at any hazard. — 
ing Theology for its intoleran 
betrayed into an intolerance | 
has pronounced upon it ‘ole 
Religion be yet brought wit 
Law? Law is the revelation 
one slowly through the centu 
have crystallized into geomet 
form not only perfect in itself, 
its relation to all other. forms. — 
had to be perfected before the 
Spiritual, The Inorganic has to’ 


1“ Unseen Universe.” 6th ed., 


























eS 


ove the Organic, the Natural before the 
‘Spiritual. Theology at present has merely an 
ancient and provisional philosophic form. By 
by it. will be seen whether it be not sus- 
ptible of another. For Theology must pass 
; through the necessary stages of progress, like 
any other science. The method of science- 
making is now fully established. In almost all 
uses the natural history and developinent are 
hesame. Take, for example, the case of Geol- 
ogy. Acentury ago there was none. Science 
ent out to look for it, and brought back 
Geology which, if Nature were a harmony, 
had falsehood written almost on its face. It 
was the Geology of Catastrophism, a Geology 
out of Jine with Nature as revealed by the 
other sciences, that on @ priori grounds a 
loughtiul mind might have been justified in 
dismissing it as a final form of any science, 
And its fallacy was. soon and thoroughly ex- 
posed. The advent of modified uniformitarian 
principles all but banished the word catastrophe 
‘from science, and marked the birth of Geol- 
ogy as we know itnow. Geology, that is to say, 
ad fallen at last into the great scheme of Law. 
Religious doctrines, many of them at least, 
have been up to this time all but as catastro- 
hic as the old Geology. They are not on the 
ae of Nature as we have learned to decipher 
her. If any one feel, as Science complains that 
feels, that the lie of things in the Spiritual 
orld as arranged by Theology is not in har- 
mony with the world around, is not, in short, 
scientific, he is entitled to raise the question 











X 




















whether this be really the final form: 
partments of Theology to which his co 
refers. Heis justified; moreover, in de 
a new investigation with all modern me 
and resources; and Science is bound by 
principles not less than by the lessons of its 
past, to suspend judgment till the last attemp 
is made. The success of such an attempt will 
be looked forward to with hopefulness 
fulness just in proportion to one’s co 
in Nature—in proportion to one’s belief in the 
divinity of man and in the divinity of th 
If there is any truth in the unity of Nature i 
that supreme principle of Continuity which is 
growing in splendor with every discovery of — 
science, the conclusion is foregone. If © here. 
is'any foundation for Theology, if the phe 
nomena of the Spiritual World are real, in the 
nature of things they ought to come into. the 
sphere of Law. Such is at once the demand ~ 
of Science upon Religion and the prophecy head 
that it can and shall be fulfilled. 
The Botany of Linnaeus, a purely artificial - ti 
system, was a splendid contribution to human 
knowledge, and did more in its day to soe S 
the view of the vegetable kingdom than all — 
that had gone before. But all artificial 
tems must pass away. None knew better 
than the great Swedish naturalist himself t hat 
his system, being artificial, was but provisional. 
Nature must be read in its own light. A ad 
as the botanical field became more luminous, 
the system of Jussieu and De Candolle slowly 
emerged as a native growth, unfolded ees 4 



















































owers, and forcing itself upon men’s intelli- 
gence as the very voice of Nature, banished 
the Linnean system forever. It were unjust 
to say that the present Theology is as artifi- 
cial as the system of Linneus ; in many partic- 
ulars it wants but a fresh expression to make 
it in the most modern sense scientific. But if 
it has a basis in the constitution and course of 
Nature, that basis has never been adequately 
shown. It has depended on Authority rather 
_ than on Law ; anda new basis must be sought 
_ and found if it is to be presented to those with 
~ whom Law alone is Authority. 
Jt is not of course to be inferred that the 
- scientific method will ever abolish the radical 
“distinctions of the Spiritual World. True 
science proposes to itself no such general ley- 
elling in any department.. Within the unity 
_ of the whole there Tust always be room for 


. those Baidenties of Hane at the present time 
_ which ignore such distinctions, in their zeal 
for simplicity really create confusion. As has 
been well said by Mr. Hutton: “ Any attempt 
to merge the distinctive characteristic of a 
_ higher science in a lower—of chemical changes 
in mechanical—of physiological in chemical— 
_ above all, of mental changes in physiological 
is a neglect of the radical assumption of all 
cience, because it is an attempt to deduce 
epresentations,—or rather misrepresentations 
of one kind of phenomenon from a concep- 
‘ion of anotber kind which does not contain it, 































and must have it on eee 
gled in before it can be € 


resenting the universe to « 
‘i the detailed examination 
ae a procedure leads to mi 
' __on the basis of an imported 
; _ ally ends in forcibly pervert 
science to the type of the 
What is wanted is simply 
tion, but not such a unity 
should be founded on an- 
phenomena. This latter mi 
unity, but it would be a 
perfection of unity is attaim 
infinite variety of phenom 
plexity of relation, but great: 
Science. will be complete when 
phenomena can be arranged i 
in which a few well-known La 
radii-these radii at once separe 
ing, separating into particular; 
ing all to a common centre. 
radii for some of the most- 
nomena of the Spiritual, WwW 
drawn within that circle by seie 
>} ‘object of the papers which follow 
cn found an attempt to re-state 
elementary facts of the Spiritu 
of Biology.. Any argument for 
the Spiritual World may be b 
&@ posteriori form. And altho 

















dng pages are not ee Oe in the first instance 
Bo prove a’ principle, they may yet be entered 
ere as evidence. The practical test is a se- 


P. Paoa what will be et if the point be 
made out? Not a few things. For one, as 
partly indicated already, the scientific demand 
of the age will be satisfied. That demand is 
that all that concerns life and conduct shall be 
placed on a scientific basis. The only great 
attempt to meet that at present is Positivism. 
But what again is a scientific basis? What 
exactly is this demand of the age? “By 
_ Science I understand,” says ~Huxley, “all 

knowledge which rests upon evidence and rea- 
soning of a like character to that which claims 
our assent to ordinary scientific propositions ; 
_ and if any one is able to make good the asser- 
tion that his theology rests upon valid evi- 
dence and sound reasoning, then it appears to 
me that such theology must take its place as 
a part of science.” That the assertion has 
"been already made good is claimed by many 

who deserve to be heard on questions of scien- 
tific evidence. But if more is wanted by some 
-minds, more not perhaps of a higher kind but 
of a different kind, at least the attempt can 
_be made to gratify them. Mr. Frederic Harri- 
son,’ in name of the Positive method of 
fa eine “turns aside from ideal standards 










e ae A “Modern Symposium.’ ’—Nineteenth Century, 
rol. i. Pe 625. , 




















™% 





dw jee oe Set, 









44 INTRODUCTION. 





which avow themselves to be’ Ja 
italics are Mr. Harrison’s], which 





transcend the field of law. We say, life and et 


conduct shall stand for us wholly on a basis of 
law, and must rest entirely in that region Of 
science (not physical, but moral and social 
science) where we are free to use our intelli- 
gence, in the methods known to us as intelligi- 
ble logic, methods which the intellect can an- 
alyze. When you confront us with hypoth- 
eses, however sublime and howeyer affecting, — 
if they cannot be stated in terms of the rest 
of our knowledge, if they are disparate to 
that world of sequence and sensation which to 
us is the ultimate base of all our real knowl 
edge, then we shake ,our heads and turn 
aside.” This is a most reasonable demand, ~ 
and we humbly accept the challenge. We 
think religious truth, or at all events certain 
of the largest facts of the Spiritual Life, can 
be stated “in terms of the rest of our knowl’ 
edge.” anf 
We do not say, as already hinted, that the 
proposal includes an attempt to proye the 


existence of the Spiritual World. Does that — 


need proof? And if so, what sort of evidence 
would be considered in court? The facets of 
the Spiritual World are as real to thousands 
as the facts of the Natural World—and more 
real to hundreds. But were one asked to 
provethat the Spiritual World can be discerned 
by the appropriate faculties, one would do it 
precisely as one would attempt to proye the 
Natural World to be an object of recognitior 




























INTRODUCTION. 
to ‘the senses—and with as much or as little 
“success. In either instance probably the fact 
would be found ineapable of demonstration, 
_ but not more in the one case than in the other. 
_ Were one asked to prove the existence of 
Spiritual Life, one would also do it exactly as 
- one would seek to prove Natural Life. And 
“this perhaps might be attempted with more 
: hope. But this is not on the immediate’ pro- - 
_ gramme. Science deals with known facts; and 
_ accepting certain known facts in the Spiritual 
_ World we proceed to arrange them, to dis- 
 eover their Laws, to inquire if they can be 
_ stated “in terms of the rest of our knowl- 
- edg a 

Bt ‘At the same time, although attempting no 
_ philosophical proof of the existence of a Spir it-' 
ual Life and a Spiritual World, we are not 
_ without hope that the general line of thought 
_ here may be useful to some who are honestly 
* inquiring in these directions. The stumbling- 
_ block to most minds is perhaps less the mere 
existence of the unseen than the want of defi- 
s nition, the apparently hopeless vagueness, and 
* not least, the delight in this vagueness as mere 
_ vagueness by some who look upon this as the 
mark of quality in Spiritual things. It will 
_ be at least something to tell ear nest seekers 
_ that the Spirjtual World is not a castle in the 
air, of an architecture unknown to earth or 
“heaven, but a fair ordered realm furnished with 
many familiar things and ruled by well re- 
membered Laws. 

. Iti is scarcely necessary to emphasize under 













46 INTRODUCTION 


a second lead the gain in elea 
Spiriiucd world as it, stands i is full 
ity. One can escape doubt only 
thought. With regard to many — 
articles of religion, perhaps the best a 
worst course at present open to a dou 
simply eredulity. Who is to answer — 
state of things? It comes as a nec 
for impr ovement on the age in which y 
The old ground of faith, Authority, is giv 
up; the new, Science, has not yet taken . 
place, Men did not require to see truth before; 
they only needed te believe it. Truth, oe 
fore, had not been put by Theology in a seein 
form—which, however, was its original form. 
But now they ask to see it. And when it is 
shown them they start back in despair. ae 
shall not say what they see. But we shall 
say what they might see. If the N a siete 
Laws were run through the Spiritual met 
they might see the great lines of rel acu: 
truth as “clearly and simply as the broad ie 
of science. As they gazed into that Nabi 
Spiritual World they would say to themselves, 

“ We have seen something like this eons 
This order is known to us. Itisnotarbi 

This Law here is that old Law there, and 1 
Phenomenon here, what can it be but at 
which stood in precisely the same relation to 
that Law yonder?” And so gradually from 
the new form everything assumes new mean- 
ing. So the Spiritual World becomes i 
Natural ; ; and, what is of all but equal momen 
the Natural World becomes slowly Sprtaa, 















_ “<ENTRODUCTION. — 
‘Nature is not a mere image or emblem of the 
spiritual. It is a working model of the Spirit- 
. Inthe Spiritual World the same wheels 
evolve—but without the iron. The same 
gures flit across the stage, the same processes 
of growth go on, the same functions are dis- 
harged, the same biological laws prevail— 
mly with a different quality of Bios. Plato’s 
prisoner, if not out of the Cave, has at least his 


/ 

~“* The earth is cram’d with heaven, —. 

And every common bush afire with God.’ 
How much of the Spiritual World is covered 
- by Natural Law we do not propose at present 
oO inquire. It is certain, at least, that the 
whole isnot covered. And nothing more lends 
onfidence to the method than this. For one 
thing, room is still left for mystery. Had no 
place remained for mystery it had proved itself 


ithout mystery is unknown ; a Religion with- 


duce Religion to a question of mathematics, or 
emonstrate God in biological formule. The 
elimination of mystery from the universe is 

fhe elimination of Religion. However far the 
cientific method may penetrate the Spiritual 
World, there will always remain a region to be 
lored by a scientific faith. ‘I shall never 
se to the point of view which wishes to 
aise’ faith to knowledge. To me, the way 






















~ both unscientific and irreligious. A Science © 


ut mystery is absurd. This no attempt to re-. 


th is to come through the knowledge of. 





: 2 
“ay 

4 
i 








48 INTRODUCTION, 


my ignorance to the submissiveness of faith, 


and then, making that my starting place, to 
raise my knowledge into faith.” ? 

Lest this proclamation of mystery should 
seem alarming, let us add that this myster 


also is scientific. The one subject on which all — 


scientific men are agreed, the one theme on 
which all alike become eloquent, the one strain 


of pathos in all their writing and speaking and 
thinking, concerns that final uncertainty, that 


utter blackness of darkness bounding their 
work on every side. If the light of Nature is 
to illuminate for us the Spiritual Sphere there 
may well be a black. Unknown, corresponding, 
at least at some points, to this zone ot dark- 
ness round the Natural World. 

But the final gain would appear in the 
department of Theology. The establishment 
of the Spiritual Laws on “the solid ground of 
Nature,” to which the mind trusts “which 
builds for aye,’ would offer a new basis for 


certainty in Religion. It has been indicated” 


that the authority of Authority is waning. 
This is a plain fact. And it was inevitable. 
Authority—man’s Authority that is—is for 
children. And there necessarily Comes a time 
when they add to the question, What shall T 
do? or, What shall, I believe? the adult's 
interrogation—W hy ? Now this question is 
sacred, and must be answered, 

“How truly its central position is impreg- 


1 Reck: “Bib. Psyrbol..”? Clark’s Tr.. Pref., 2d Ed, 
R- Aaly 


cy Ay Fara aye eee ss 





























a Ye poet a ie 
a Tee ke ae ; 
INTROD UCTION. pen 


~- nable,” Herbert Spencer. has well discerned, 
“religion has never adequately realized. In 
the devoutest faith, as we habitually see it, 
there lies hidden an innermost core of scepti- 
 cism; and it is this scepticism which causes 
that ‘dread of inquiry displayed by religion 
' when face to face with science”?! True in- 
deed; Religion has never realized how im- 
_ pregnable are many of its positions. It has 
not yet been placed on that basis which would 
make them impregnable. And in a transition 
period like the present, holding Authority 
_ with one hand, the other feeling all around in 
the darkness for some strong new support, 
Theology is surely to be pitied. Whence this 
dread when brought face to face with Science? 
_ It cannot bedread of scientific fact. No single 
- fact in Science has ever discredited a fact in 
Religion. The theologian knows that, and 
admits that he has no fear of facts. What 
then has Science done to make Theology . 
tremble? Itis its methed. It is its system. 
It is its Reign of Law. It is its harmony and 
- eontinuity. The attack is not specific. No 
one point is assailed. It is the whole system 
which when compared with the other and 
~ weighed in its balance is found wanting. An 
eye which has looked at the first cannot look 
- upon this. To do that, and rest in ,the con- 
templation, it has first to uncentury itself. 
Herbert Spencer points out further, with 
how much truth need not now De discussed, 


1 ‘* First Principles,” p. 161. 

































- that the purification of Reli 
come from Science. It is v 
> all events that an immense @ 
~ contracted. The shifting of 
will be a work of time. But 


> process will be the effect upon 
» No department of knowledge e 
a to another without receiving 
‘with usury—witness the recip 
y Biology and Sociolory. From 1 
~ Comte defined the analogy h 
" nomena exhibited by aggregati 
» men and those of animal colon 
of Life and the Science of Societ 
contributing to one another that 
since has been all but handins 









in time Radine its way backifia 
» an enlarged form, to further 
> enrich the field it left. So must 
"Science and Religion. If the pu 
- Religion comes from Science, the 
> of Science, in a deeper sense, shall 
- Religion. The true ministry of Nat 
at last be honored, and Sarena 
as the great expositor. To Men of 
~ not less than to Theologians, : 
‘ “Science 
. Shall be a precious wisitant ; and then, — 
r And only then, be worthy of her name 
For then her heart shall kindle, her 
Dull and inanimate, no more shal] han 


Chained to its object i in brute slavery 5 
But taught with patient interest to wat 








The process of things, and serve the cause 
_ Of order and distinctness, not for this 

~ Shall it forget that its most noble use, 

Its most illustrious province, must be found 

In furnishing clear guidance, asupport, 

Not treacherous, tothe mind’s excursive power.”*} 


'. But the gift of Science to Theology shall be 
not less rich. With the inspiration of Nature 
Bris, to illuminate what the inspiration of Revela- 
tion has left obscure, heresy in certain whole 
departments shall become impossible. | Ww 
q the demonstration of the naturalness of the 
a | cee scepticism even may come to 
be regarded as unscientific. And those who 
have “wrestled long for a few bare truths to 
~ ennoble life and rest their souls in thinking of 
the future will not be left in doubt. 
It is impossible to believe that the amazing 
succession of revelations in the domain of 
- Nature during the last few centuries, at which 
ae shite world has all but grown tired wondering, 
: are to yield nothing for the higher life. If the 
development of doctrine is to have any mean- 
ing for the future,Theology must draw upon 
the further revelation of the seen for the fur- 
_ ther revelation of the unseen. It need, and 
ean, add nothing to fact; but as the vision of 
_ Newton rested on a clearer and richer world 
than that of Plato, so, though seeing the same 
things in the Spiritual World as our fathers, 
we may see them clearer and richer. With 
_ the work of the centuries upon it, the mental 








1 Wordsworth’s Excursion, Book iy. 


ith - 


tw 4 






52 INTRODUCTION. 


eye is a finer instrument, and déimwatien a more 


ordered world. Had the revelation of Law 
been given sooner, it had been unintelligible. 
Revelation never volunteers anything that man 
could discover for himself—on the principle, 
probably, that it is only when he is capable of 
discovering if, that he is capable of appreciating 


it. Besides, children do not need Laws, cx- — 
cept Laws in the sense of commandments. — 


They repose with simplicity on authority, and 
‘ask no questions. But there comes a time, as 
the world reaches its manhood, when they will 


ask questions, and stake, moreover, everything ~ 


on the answers. That time is now. Hence 


we must exhibit our doctrines, not lying 


athwart the lines of the world’s thinking, in a 
place reservedy and therefore shunned, for the 
Great Exception ; but in their kinship to alu 
truth and in their Law-relation to the whoie 
of Nature. This is, indeed, simply following 
‘out the system of teaching begun by Christ 
Himself. And what is the search for spir- 
itual truth in the Laws of .Nature but an at- 
tempt to utter the parables which have been 
hid so long in the world around without a 
preacher, and to tell men once more that the 


Kingdom of Heaven is like unto this and 


that ? i 


i 
‘ 
4 



























; PARTS Lie 


Tax Law of Continuity having been referred 
- to already as a prominent factor in this in- 
quiry, it may not be out of place to sustain 
_ plea for Natural Law in the Spiritual Sphere 
by a brief statement and application of this 
- great principle. The Law of Continuity fur- 
nishes an @ priori argument for the position 
we are attempting to establish of the most 
convincing kind—of such a kind, indeed, as to 
seem to our mind final. Briefly indicated, the 
ground ‘taken up is this, that if Nature be 
a harmony, Man in all his relations—physical, 
mental, moral, and spiritual—falls to be in- 
eluded within its circle. It is altogether un- 
_ likely that man spiritual should be violently 
_ separated in all the conditions’ of growth, de- 
_ velopment, and life, from man physical. It 
_is indeed difficult to conceive that one set of 
principles should guide the natural life, ‘and 
these at a certain period—the very point 
where they are needed—suddenly give place 
to another set of principles altogether new 
and unrelated. Nature has never taught us 
to expect such a catastrophe. She has no- 
here prepared us forit. And Man cannot 
in the nature of tings, in the nature of 





v4 





o4 INTRODUCTION, 


thought, in the nature of langtiage! is sepa 
rated into two such incoherent halves. 

The spiritual man, it is true, is to be studied 
in a different department of science from the — 
natural man. But the harmony established — 
by science is not a harmony within specific 
departments. It is the universe that is the 
harmony, the universe of which these are but 
parts. And the harmonies of the parts de- 


pend for all their weight and interest on the” ~ 


harmony of the whole. While, therefore, 
there are many harmonies, there is but one 
harmony. The breaking up ofthe phenomena 
of the universe into carefully guarded groups, 
and the allocation of certain prominent Laws 
to each, it must never be forgotten, and hows 
eyer much Nature lends herself to wit, are 
artificial. We find an evolution In Botany, 
another in Geology, and another in Astronomy, ~ 
and the effect is to lead one imsensibility 
look upon these as three distinet_evolutions. 


_ But these sciences, of course, are mere depart. 


ments created by ourselves to facilitate 
knowledge—reductions of Nature to the scale 
of our own intelligence. And we must beware 
of breaking up Nature except for this purpose. 
Science has so dissected everything, that’ it 


_ becomes a mental difficulty to put the puzzle 


together again; and we must keep ourselves 
in practice by ‘constantly thinking of Nature 
as a whole, if science is not to be spoiled by its © 
own refinements. Evolution being found im 
so many different sciences, the likelihood is 
that it is a universal principle. And there is 












ts oO. , presumption coh itoNoe against this Law 
‘and many others being excluded from the do- 
main of the spiritual life. On the other hand, 
there are very convincing reasons why the 
Natural Laws should: be continuous thr ough 
_ the Spiritual Sphere—not changed in any way 
to meet the new circumstances, ‘but continuous 
as they stand. 
But to the exposition. One of the most 
striking generalizations of recent science is 
that even Laws have their Law. Phenomena 
first, in the progress of knowledge, were grouped 
‘ together, and Nature shor tly presented the 
© spectacle of a cosmos, the lines of beauty being 
the great Natural Laws. So long, however, as 
these Laws were merely great lines running 
through Nature, so long as they remained 
isolated from one another, the system of Nature 
‘was still incomplete. The principle which 
‘sought Law among phenomena had to go further 
and seek a Law among the Laws. Laws them- 
selves accordingly came to be treated as they 
treated phenomena, and found themselves 
finally grouped ina still narrowercircle. That 
~ inmost circle is governed by one great Law, the 
‘Law of Continuity. It is the Law for Laws. 
_Itis perhaps significant that few exact defini- 
tions of Continuity are to be found. Even in 
_ Sir W. R. Grove’s famous paper, the fountain- 
head of the modern form of this far from 
modern truth, there is no attempt at definition. 





for oneself a just appreciation of the Principle a, 





~ whether he would ever come down again. Boys 











56 ‘ INTRODUCTION. 
In point of fact, its sweep is so 
appeals so much more to the lmaginatio: 
to the reason, that men have prefe 
exhibit rather than to define it. Its true- 
ness consists in the final impression it lea 
on the mind with regard to the uniformity of 
Nature. For it was reserved for the Law af: “— ve 
Continuity to put the finishing touch bits 
harmony of the universe. 

Probably the most satisfactory way to See : 


of Continuity i is to try to conceive the universe © 
without it. The opposite of a continuous uni- 
verse would be a discontinuous Mniverse, an 
incoherent and irrelevant universe—as irrel- 
svant in all its ways of doing things as an ie 
irrelevant person. In effect, to withdraw Con- 
tinuity from the universe would be the same 

as to withdraw reason from. an individual, — a 


.The universe would run deranged; the world — ee 
- would be a mad world. 


There used to bea children’s book which ee 
the fascinating title of “The Chance World.” 
It described a world in which everything hap- i . 
pened by chance. The sun might rise or Gate <9 
might not; or it might appear at any hour, or ~ 
the moon might come up instead. When 
children were born they might have one head — 
or a dozen heads, and those heads might not be — 
on their shoulders—there might be no shoulders _ 
—but arranged about the limbs. Tf onejumped — 
up in the air it was impossible to posted 


ai 





he came down yesterday was no guarantee th: 
















: For every , day 
“antécedent ent varied, and gravita- 
tion and everything else changed from hour to 
hour. To-day a child’s body might be so light 
that it was impossible for it to “descend from 
its chair to the floor ; but to-morrow, in attempt 
ing the experiment again, the impetus might 
drive it through a three-story house and dash 
it to pieces somewhere near the centre of the 
earth. In this chance world cause and effect 
were abolished. Law was annihilated. And 
the result to the inhabitants of such a world - 
could only be that reason would be impossible. 
It would be a lunatic world with a population 
of lunatics. 

Now this is no more than a real picture of 
what the world would be without Law, or the 
4 _ universe without Continuity. And hence we 
_ come in sight of the necessity of some principle 
- or Law accor ding to which Laws shall be, and 
be “continuous” * throughout: the system. Man 
-_asarational and moral being demands a pledge 
j that if he depends on Nature for any given 
' result on the ground that Nature has pre- 
viously led him.to except such a result, his 
_ intellect shall not be insulted, nor his confi- 
_ dertice in her abused. If he is to trust Nature, 
in short; it must be guaranteed to him that in 
_ floing so he will “never be put to confusion.” 
- The authors of the Unséen Universe conclude 
_ their examination of this principle by saying 

that “assuming the existence of a supreme 
Governor of the universe, the Principle of 
Continuity may be said to be the definite ex- 





INTRODUCT! 


















pression in words of our trust’ 
put us to permanent intellectual 
~ we can easily conceive similar exp 
trust with reference to the other 
- man.”? Or,as it has been well 
“Continuity is the expression 
Veracity in Nature.” ? The mos 
‘examples of the continuousness 
perhaps those furnished by A 
“cially in connection with the more 
gations of spectrum analysis. Bute 
> case of the simpler Laws the der n 
»-complete. There is no rea 
Continuity to expect that 
* instance should preyail ou 
- But wherever matter has 
-) throughout the entire universe, 
_ form of star or planet, comet 0 
found to obey that Law. “If 
7 other indication of unity-than this. 
_ almost enough. , For the unity which is 
_ in the enon of the heayen: isa 


















































The structure of our own bodies, ¥ 
depends upon it, isa structure 
"and therefore adapted to, the s 
© gravitation which has determined tk 
the movements of ped dear of worl 








1“Unseen Universe,” 6th Ed. p. 88. eas 
2“ Old Faiths in New Light,” by‘ New 
Unwin’s English edition, p. 252. a 







the forbes of er coaewn were to change o or 
fail.” / 
But it is unnecessary to multiply illustra. 
- tions. Having defined the principle we, may 
4 cseean at once to apply it. And the argu- 
ment may be summed up ina sentence. ths 
the Natural Laws are continuous through the . 
_ universe of matter and of space, so will theybe 
. eontinuous through the universe of spirit. 
If this be denied, what tlien'? “'Phés6who 
deny it must furnish the disproof.’ The FS “a i 
~ -mentis founded on a ptinciple which is RO 
acknowledged to be universal; and the onzso 
 “disproof must lie withy these Wiest pee bold i 4 
~. enough to take up the position tha “gion | 
BY, exists where at last the Principle f Continuity / 
fails. To do this one would first\have to ones bed 
turn Nature, then’ Bees and last, the hut 
— mind, ; 
/ -It may seem an obwiduis eivjce tials that many 
of the Natural Laws have'no connection what- 
- © ever with the Spiritual World)and.as a matter 
, of fact are not.continued through it. Gravita- 
7 





AKO nas 


- tion for instance—what direct “application has 
that in the Spiritual World? The reply is 
_ threefold. First, there is no proof that it does 
‘not hold there. If the spirit be in any sense 
material itcertainly musthold. In the second 
_ place, gravitation may hold for the Spiritual 
Sphere although it cannot be directly proved. 
_ The spirit may be armed with powers. which 
yi enable it to rise superior to gravity. During 


1 The Duke of Argyll : Contemporary Review, Sept., 
ant Be 358. 





















60 INTRODUCTION. baits ba 
the action of these powers gravity need beno __ 
more suspended than in the ease of a plant ~ 
which rises in the air during the process of 
growth. It does this in virtueof a higher Law 
and in apparent defiance of the lower. Thirdly, 
if the spiritual be not material it still cannot 
be said that gravitation ceases at that point to 
be continuous. It is not gravitation that 
ceases=itiis matter. i 

‘This point, However, will require develop- 
mént for another reason. Inthe case of the 
plant just referred.to, there is a principle of 
growth or vitality atywork superseding the at- 
tragtiqn, oferpvity.. Why is there no trace of 
that Law in the Inorganic world? ITs not this 
4 another instance of the wdiscontinuousness , of 

‘Law ? ‘If the Law-of, vitality has so little con- 
nection with the Inorgapic kingdom—less eyen 
thai gravitation withthe Spiritual, what be- 
eomes of Continuity? Is it not evident that” 
each kingdom of Nature has its own set of Laws 
which contintie possibly untouched for the 
specific kingdom but never extend beyond it? 

It is quite true that when we pass from the 
Tnorganic to the Organic, we come upon a new 
set of Laws. But the reason why the lower 
set do not seem to act in the higher sphere 
is not that they are annibilated;bnt they are ~ 
overruled. And the reason why the higher — 
Laws are not found operating in the Jower is: 
not because they ‘are not continuous down- 
wards, but because there is nothing for them 
there to act upon. Jt is not Law that fails, 
but opportunity. The biological Laws are con- 

4 


61 





sinuous for life. Wherever there is life, that 
_ 4s to say, they will be found acting, just as 
gravitation acts wherever there is matter. 
_— We have purposely, in the last paragraph, 
indulged in a fallacy. We have said that the 
biological Laws would certainly be continuous 
_ in the lower or mineral sphere were there any- 
; thing there for them to act upon, Nsw Laws 
_ donot act upon anything. (It has been stated / 
already, although apparently it cannot, be tor 
: abundantly emphasized, that Laws are only 
modes of operation, not themselves operators. 
’ The accurate statement, therefore, would be 
that the biological Laws would be continuous 
4 in the lower sphere were there anything there 
- for them, not toact upon, but to keep in order, 
If there is no acting going on, if there is noth. : 
j -ing being kept in or der, the responsibility 
8 does not lie with Continuity. ey, Law will 


a eS 


- are = a but wherever they are vpbssilitel 
4 Attention is drawn to this, for it is a correc- 
a tion one will find oneself compelled often to 
3 amake in his thinking. It is so difficult to keep 
_ out of mind the idea of substance in connectic. 
with the Natural Laws, the idea that they are 
_ the movers, the essences, the energies, that one 
is constantly on the verge of falling into false 
conclusions. ,Thus a hasty glance at the pres- 









“9r with cause would probably lead to its im- 
at mediate rejection. 
) Fen to continue the same line of illustration, 


Font argument on the part of any one ilk fur. ‘ 








ai 


fe pies a = 


Pe, Ota RET 






62 INTRODUCTION. 


it might next be urged that such a Law as 
Biogensis, which, as we hope to show after- — 
wards, is the fundamental Law of life for both — 
the natural and spiritual worlds, can have no © 
application whatsoever in the latter sphere. 
The life with which it deals in the Natural 
World does not enter at allinto the Spiritual 
World, and therefore, it might be argued, the — 
Law of Biogenesis cannot be capable of ex- 
tension into it. The Law of Continuity seems 
to be snapped atthe point where the natural 
passes into the spiritual. The vital principle 
of the body is a different thing from the vital 
principle of the spiritual life. Biogenesis — 
deals with Boe with the natural life, with 
cells and germs, and as there are no exactly 
similar cells and germs in the Spiritual World, 


ay 


the Law cannot therefore apply. All of which 


is as true as if one were to say that the fifth 
proposition of the First Book of Euelid applies 
when the figures are drawn with chalk upon a 
blackboard, but fails with regard to structures 
of wood or stone. 

The proposition is continuons for the whole 
world, and, doubtless, likewise for the sun and 
moon and stars. The same universality may — 
be predicated likewise for the Law of life. 
Wherever there is life we may expect to find it” 
arranged, ordered, governed according to the - 
same Law. At the beginning of the natural 
life we find the Law that natural life can only 
eome from pre-existing natural life; and at 
the beginning of the spiritual life we find that 
the spiritual life can only come frem wre: 














. INTRODUCTION. 63 
sting spiritual life. But there are not two 
; there is one—Biogenesis. At one end 
i the nae is dealing with matter, at the other 
with spirit. The ‘qualitative terms natural and 
spiritual make no difference, Biogenesis is the 
Law for all life afid for all kinds of life, and the 
particular substance with which it is associated 
if is as different to Biogenesis as it is to Gravita- 
J tion. Gravitation will. act whether the sub- 
_ stance be suns and stars, or grains of sand, or- 
a raindrops. Biogenesis, in like manner, will 
_ wherever act there is life. 
The conclusion finally is, that from the 
‘= nature of Law in general, and from the scope 
of the Principle of Continuity in particular, 
the Laws of the natural life must be those of 
_ the spiritual life. This does not exclude, 
’ observe, the possibility of there being new 
* Laws in addition within the Spiritual Sphere ; ‘ 
nor does it even include the supposition that 
- theold Laws will be the conspicuousLaws of 
f. _ the Spiritual World, both which points will be 
- dealt with presently. It simply asserts that 
_ whatever else may be found, these must be 
+ found there; that they must be there though 
we they’ may not be seen there; and that they 
i. “tnust project beyond there if there be anything 
«-beyond there. If‘the Law of Continuity is 
4 true, the only way to escape the conclusion 
that the Laws of the natural life are the ‘Laws, 
or at least are Laws, of the spiritual life, is to 
- say that there is no spiritual life It is really 
~ easier to give up the phenomena than to give 
Ne the Law. 















64 INTRODUCTION. 


Two questions now remain for further con- 
sideration—one bearing on the possibility of 
new Law in the spiritual ; the other, on Vine 
assumed invisibility or inconspictousness of 
the old Laws on account of their suboniaa 
to the new. 

Let us begin by concede that there may is 
new Laws. The argument might then be 
advanced that since, in Nature generally, we 
come upon new Laws as we pass from lower 
to higher kingdoms, the old still remaining in 
force, the newer Laws which one would expect © 
to meet in the Spiritual World would so tran- 
scend and overwhelm the older as to make the 
analogy or identity, even if traced, of no practi- 
caluse. The new Laws would represent opera- 
tions and energies so different, and so much 
more elevated, that they would afford the true 
keys to the Spiritual World. As Gravitation. 
is practically lost sight of when we pass imtc 
the domain of life, so Biogenesis would be lost 
sight of as we enter the Spiritual Sphere. 

We must first separate in this statement the 
old confusion of Law and energy. Gravitation= 
is not lost sight of in the organie world. Gray, 
ity may be, to a certain extent, but not Gravita. 
tion; and gravity only where a higher power 
counteracts its action. At the same time it ia 
not to be denied that the conspicuous thing int 
Organic Nature is not the great Inorganic Law, 

But the objection turns upon the statement 
that reasoning from analogy we should expect, 
in turn, to lose sight of Biogenesis as we enter 
the Spiritual Sphere. One answer to which is 







as a. shatter ‘of fact, we do not lose sight 
fit. So far from being invisible, it lies across 
e very threshold of the Spiritual World, and, 
$ we shall see, pervades it everywhere. Witat 
e lose sight of, to a certain extent, is the 
atural Bios. In the Spiritual World that. is 
not the. conspicuous thing, and it is obscure: 
there just as gravity becomes obscure in the 
- Organic, because something higher, more po- 
tent, more characteristic of the higher plane, 
comes in, That there are higher energies, so 
to speak, in the Spiritual World is, of course, 
ee be affirmed alike on the ground of analogy 














and of experience; but it does not follow that. 


these necessitate other Laws. A Law sit 
nothing to do with potency. We may los 
sight of a substance, or of an energy, but iti is 
am an abuse of language to talk of losing sight of 
Laws. 
_ Are there, then, no hee Laws in the Spirit 
ual World except those which are the projec 
tions or extensions of Natural Laws? From. 
_ the number of Natural Laws which are found 
in the higher sphere, from the large territory 

actually “embraced by them, and “from. their 
on prominence throughout the whole re-- 

on, it may at least be answered that the mar- 
gin left for them is small. But if the objection 
ts pressed that it is contrary to the analoey, 
and unreasonable in itself, that there should 
not be new Laws for this higher sphere, the. 
# reply is obvious. Let these Laws be produced. 
Yf the spiritual nature, in inception, growth, 

















anid, cevelopmeht, does not follow natural prin- 
















“ciples, let the true principl 
plained. We have not dea 
be new Laws. One would alt 
iithere were not. The mass 
over from the natural to the 
ous, apparently, from the nat 
“ual, is so great that till that 
‘will be impossible to say 
Jeff unembraced by Laws th 
present it is impossible even a 
estimate,the size of that suy 
-nita, From one point of 
vast, from another extrem 
4 ever larce the region governed | 
new Laws may be that can 
hair’s-breadth the size of the 
> the old Laws still prevail. 
» self, relatively to us though 
lutely, must be of great extent. — 
‘key which is to open it, that is, th 
Natural Laws which ean be 
a guarantee that the region: 
in the Spiritual World is at 
these regions of the Natural 
the help of these Laws have 
No doubt also there yet remai 
Laws to be discovered, and the 
have a further light to shed ¢ 
field. Then we may know all 
means. We may only know all 
known. And that may be ve 
| Sovereign Will which sways the 
invisible empire must be granted 
freedom—that freedom which by p 









































































os may be called the a bab relation, 

here may seem no special Law—no Law ex- 
cept the highest ofall, that Law of which all 
other Laws are parts, that Law which neither 
4 Nature can wholly reflect nor the mind begin 

to fathom—the Law of Love. He adcs noth- 
ing to that, however, who loses sight of all 
- other Laws in that, nor does he take from it 
who finds specific Laws everywhere radiating 
from it. 

i With regard to the supposed new Laws of 
the Spiritual World—those Laws, that is, 
V-which are found for the first time in the Spirit. 
- ual World, and have no analogies lower down— 
_ there is this to be said, that there is one strong 
- reason against exaggerating either their num- 
_ ber or importance—their importance at least 
- for our immediate needs. The connection be- 
- tween language and the Law of Continuity has 
been referred to incidentally already. It is 
| Clear that we can only express the Spiritual 
_ Laws in language borrowed from the visible 
- universe. Being dependent for our vocab- 
-ulary on images, if an altogether new and 
foreign set of Laws existed in the Spiritual 
World, they could never take shape as definite. 
ideas from mere want of words. The hypo- 
_ thetical new Laws which may remain to be dis- 
Beare in the domain of Natural on Mental 

















i ‘thetical ister foie but this w mul of course 
mean that the latter were no longer foreign 










68 5 


but in analogy, or, likelier still, iden: 
on the other hand, the Natural Law 
future have nothing to say of these higher’ 
Laws, what can be said of them! Whereis 
the language to come from in which to frame 
them? If their disclosure could be of % 

practical use to us, we may be sure the hes 
to them, the revelation of them, in some way 
would have been put into Nature. If, on the | 
contrary, theyare not to be of immediate use 
to man, it is better they should not embarrass’ 
him. After all, then, our knowledge of higher 
Law must be limited by our knowledge of the 
lower. The Natural Laws as at present 
known, whatever additions may yet be made 
to them, give a fair rendering of the facts of — 


Nature. And their analogies or their pro- 


jections in the Spiritual Sphere may also be 
said to offer a fair account of that sphere, or 
of one or two conspicuous departments of it. 
The time has come for that account to 
be given. The greatest among the theological 
Laws are the Laws of Nature in disguise. It 
will be the splendid task of the theology of the 
future to take off the mask and diselose to 
a waning scepticism the naturalness of the | 
super natural, 

It is almost singular that the idéntibeation | 
of the Laws of the Spiritual World with the 
Laws of Nature should so long have eseapec 
recognition. For apart from the probabilit 
on a priori grounds, it is involved in the whole 
structure of Parable. When any two Phe. 
nomena in the two spheres are seen to be anal- 



























1s, the parallelism must depend upon the 
% that the Laws governing them are not 
alogous but identical. And yet this basis 
for Parable seems to have been overlooked. 
Thus. Principal Shairp :—“ This seeing of 
Spiritual truths mirrored in ‘the face of 
Nature rests not on any fancied, but in a real 
lalogy between the natural and the spiritual 
worlds. They are in some sense which science 
as not ascertained, but which the vital and re- 
ligious imagination can perceive, counterparts 
- one of the other.”? But is not this the ex- 
_ planation, that parallel Phenomena depend 
upon identical Laws? It is a question indeed 
whether one can speak of Laws at-all as being 
analogous. Phenomena are parallel, Laws 
which make them so are themselves one. 

- Indiscussing the relations of the Natural and 
piritual kingdom, it has been all” but implied 
itherto that the Spiritual Laws were framed 
_ originally on the plan of the Natural; and the 
mpression one might receive in studying the 
wo worlds for the first time from the side 
‘of analogy would naturally be that the lower, 
- world was formed first, as a kind of scaffolding 
on which the higher and Spiritual should be 
afterwards raised. Now the exact opposite has 
been the case. The first in the field was the 
Spiritual World. 

It is not necessary to reproduce here in~ 
etail the argument which has been stated 
ecently with so much force in the * Unseen 


Qe “Poetic Interpretation of Nature,” p. 115. 





70 INTROLUCTIGN. 









mains still unassailed, that the visible um 
has been developed from the unseen. “A: 
from the general proof from the Lawe 
tinuity, the more special grounds of 
conclusion are, first, the fact insisted upon b 
Herschel and Clerk-Maxwell that the atoms | 
which the visible universe is built up bear 
tinct parks es being manufactured a 


universe is mpnied re om known facts will 1 
gard to the dissipation of energy. . With 
gradual aggregation of mass the energy of the 
universe has been slowly disappearing, ‘and’ >) 
this loss of energy must go on until none © 
remains. There is, therefore, a point im time” 
when the energy of the universe must come to ae 
an end; and that which has its end in time | 
cannot be infinite, it must also have had a” 
beginning in time. Hence thewmseen existed ~~ 7 
Defore the seen. } 
There is nothing so especially exalted there-. 
fore in the Natural Laws in themselyes as to 
make one anxious t. find them blood relations of ~ 
the Spiritual. Itis not only because these Laws 
are on the ground, more accessible therefore to — 
us who are but groundlings ; not only, as the 
“ Unseen Universe ” points outin ano her con- > 
nection, “‘ because they are at the bottom of the - 
list—are in fact the simplest and lowest—that 
they are capable of being most readily; grasped 
by the finite intelligences of the universe.” 





+ 6th Edition, p. 236, 








hat they are on the list at all,and especially 
m that the list is the same list. , Their dignity 
is not as Natural Laws, but as Spiritual Laws, 
aws which, as already said, at one end are deal- 
ng with Matter, and at the other with Spirit. 
« The physical properties of matter form the 
_ alphabet which is put into our hands by God, 
_ _ the study of which, if properly conducted, will 
enable us more perfectly to read that creat 
~ book which we call the ‘ Universe.”? But, 
- over and above this, the Natural Laws will en- 
, able us to read that great duplicate which we 
- eall the “ Unseen Universe,” and tothink and 
- live in fullcr harmony with it. After all, the 
true ereatness of Law lies.in its vision-of the 
_ Unseen. Law in the visible is the Invisible im 
the visible. And to speak of Laws as Natural 
i" 4s tu define them in their application to a part 
4 of the universe, the sense-part, whereas a wider 
* survey would lead us to regard all Law as 
4 essentially Spiritual. To magnif y the Laws of 
a 
} 










Nature, as Laws of this small world of ours, is 
to take a provincial view of the universe. Law. 
is great not because the phenomenal world is 
great, but because these vanishing lines are the 
avenues into the eternal Order. 
; “Ts it less reverent to regard the universe 
as an illimitable avenue which leads up to Ged, 
- than to look upon it as a limited area bounded 
_ by an impenetrable wall, which, if we could 


_ only pierce it, would admit us at once into the 






1 6th Edition, p. 286. 









72 INTRODUCTION. 


presence of the Eternal?” ? Indeed he! 
of the “ Unseen Universe” demur 
expression material wniverse, since, as they 
us “ Matter is (though it may seem paradox 
to say so) the less important half of. th 
material of the physical universe.”? And even 
Mr. Huxley, though in a different eee Gat 
sures us, with Descar tes, “ that we know more © 
of mind than we do of body); that the im- ~ 

material wor Id is a firmer reality than the 
material.” 

How oo, priority of the Spiritual improves 
the strength and meaning of the whole argu- 
ment will be seen at once. The lines of the | 
Spiritual existed first, and it was natural to” 
expect that when the « Intelligence resident _ 
in the ‘ Unseen’” proceeded to frame the — 
material universe He should go upon the lines ~ 
already laid down. He would, in Short, simply ~ 
project the higher Laws downward, so thatthe — 
Natural W orld would become an incarnation, 

a visible representation, a working model of 
the Spiritual. The whole funetion of the 
material world lies here. The world is only 
a thing that és; it 7s not. It is a thing that” 
teaches, yet not even a thing—a show that 
shows, a teaching shadow. However useless 
the demonstration otherwise, philosophy: does 
well in proving that matter is @ non-entity. 
We work with it as the mathematician with an 
x. The reality is alone the Spiritual. “tis 





Ss eS ae 


1“ Unseen Universe,”’ p. 96. 2 Tbid., p. 100. 
8 “ Science and Culture,’’ p, 259,” ; 


, 








well for sh sicists to en of ‘ matter? 
ut for men - hysats to call this ‘a material 
world’ is anabsurdity. Should we call it an 
world it would mean as much, viz., that we 
- donot know what it is.”? When shall we 
learn the true mysticism of one who was yet 
far from being a mystic—“ We look not at the 
_ things which are seen, but at the things which 
are not seen ; for the things which are seen 
are temporal, but the things which are not 
_ seen areeternal?”? The visible is the ladder 
up to the invisible; the temporal is but the 
_ scaffolding of the eternal. And when the last 
immaterial souls have climbed through this 
material to God, the scaffolding shall be taken 
down, and the "earth dissolved with fervent 
heat—not because it was base, but because its 
_ work is done. 


2 Hinton’ 2 re Se een and Religion,” p. 40. 
2 Cor. iv. 1 













% 





. 


= 


a 
“+> 


To mir TP ge Ae 


Ag 
¢ ee PR nee 
cs Li . 















* What we require is no n 
an adequate conception of 1 
anity. And I believe that, 


of the Holy Spirit will be | co 
gradual insight which the ht 
_ the true essence of the Chri 
of opinion that a standing mira: 
has ever existed—a direct and 








BIOGENESIS. 


Ba “ He that hath the Son hath Life, and he that hati 
not the Son of God hath not Life.”—John. 
-“Omne vivum ex vivo,’’—Harvey. 



















For two hundred years the’ scientific world | 
as been rent with discussions upon the Origin 
of Life. Two great schools have defended 
exactly opposite views—one that matter can 
? ‘spontaneously generate life, the other that life 
ean only come from pre-existing life. The 
doctrine of Spontaneous Generation, as the 
first is called, has been revived within recent. 
years by Dr. Bastian, after aseries of elaborate 
experiments on the Beginnings of Life. Stated 
in his own words, his conclusion is this : 
~ “Both observation and experiment unmistak- 
_ ably testify to the fact that living matter is con- 
tantly be’ag formed de novo, in obedience to 
the same /aws and tendencies which determine 
1 the mvre simple chemical combinations.” ? 

Life, that is to say, is not the Gift of Life. It 
is capable of springing into being of itself. It 
_ can be Spontaneously Generated. 


1 Be puntos of Life.” By H.C. Bastian, ein 
D., F. Macmillan, vol. ii. p. 633. 


17 














‘the outer air. The air inside, haying 


18 BIOGENES 






















phalanx of observers, and the hig 
ities in biological science engaged 
afresh upon the problem. The ex 
necessary to test the matter can re 
or repeated by any one possessing the 
manipulative skill. Glass vessels are 
parts filled with infusions of hay or 
organic matter. They are boiled 

germs of life, and hermetically sealed kt 


exposed to the boiling temperature for 
hours, is supposed to be likewise dead 
that any life which may subsequently 
in the closed flasks must have sprun\ 
ing of itself. In Bastian’s expe: 
every expedient to secure sterility, li 
appear inside in myriad quantity. Theref 
he argued, it was spontaneously generated. © 
But the phalanx of observers found 
errors in this calculation. Professor Tyt 
repeated the same experiment, only with a 
precaution to ensure absolute sterility sigs 
gested by the most recent science—a discovery 
of his own. After every care, he conceive 
there might still be undestroyed gems in’ 
air inside the flasks. If the air were vbsolu 
germless and pure, would the myriad Ii 
appear? He manipulated his experimen: 
vessels in an atmosphere which under the 
test of optical purity—the most delicate known 
test—was absolutely germless. Here , 
vestige of life appear ed. Hevaried the 















i 


ment in every direction, but matter in the 
- germless air never yielded life. 
_ The other error was detected by Mr. Dal- 
linger. He found among the lower forms of 
- life the most surprising and indestructible 
vitality. Many animals could survive much 
higher temperatures than Dr. Bastian had 
applied to annihilate them. Some germs 
~ almost_refused to be annihilated—they were 
p. all but fire-proof. 
Pi ‘These experiments have practically closed 
the questions A decided and authoritative — 
- conclusion has now taken its place in science. 
So far as science can settle anything, this ques- 
tion is settled. The attempt to get the living 
out of the dead has failed. Spontaneous, 
Generation has had to be given up. And it 
is now recognized on every hand that Life can 
only come from the touch of Life. Huxley © 
categorically announces that the doctrine of 
Biogenesis, or life only from life, is “-victo- 
rious along the whole line at the present day.” 4 
P And even whilst confessing that he wishes the 
' evidence were the other way, Tyndall is com- 
 pelled to say, “I affirm that no shred of trust- 
worthy experimental testimony exists to prove 
that life in our day has ever appeared inde- 
_ pendently of antecedent life.” ? 
For much more than two hundred years a 
‘similar discussion has dragged its length 
through the religious world. Twogreat schools 













ae. oes 


a ee 













te 


1‘ Critiques and Addresses."". T.H. Huxley, F. R. S., 


 -~p. 229. 2 Nineteenth Century, 1878, p. 507. 
‘ta t " ; 4 Dish. 





0 BIOGENESIS. 





here also have defended exactly opposite views — 
—one that the Spiritual Life in man can only 


come from pre-existing Life, the other that it 


ean Spontaneously Generate itself. T. 

its stand upon the initial statement of the 
Author of the Spiritual Life, one small school, 
in the face of derision and opposition, has 


persistently maintained the doctrine of Bio- 


genesis. Another, larger and with greater pre- 
tension to philosophic form, has defended 
Spontaneous Generation. ‘The weakness of the 


former school consists—though this has been — 


much exaggerated—in its more or less general 
adherence to the extreme view that religion 
had nothing to do with. the natural life; the 
weakness of the latter lay in yielding to the 
more fatal extreme that it had nothing to do 
with anything else. That man, being a wor- 
shipping animal by nature, ought to maintain 
certain relations to the Supreme Being, was 
_indeed to some extent coneeded by the natu- 
ralistic school, but religion itself was looked 
upon as a thing to be spontaneously generated 
by the evolution of character in the laboratory 
of common life. 

The difference between the two positions is 
radical. Translating from the language of 
Science into that of Religion, the theory of 
Spontaneous Generation is simpl rd that a man 
* may become gradually better and better until 
in course of the process he reaches Mesh ar 9 ality 
ot religious nature known as, Spiritual La 
This Life is not something added ab extra is 


the natural man ; it is the normal and appro. 


—" ae 


q 
| 





























a Cae ath ay Va. 


priate development of the natural man. Bio- 
> genesis opposes to this the whole doctrine of 
_ Regeneration. The Spiritual Life is the gift 
_ of the Living Spirit. The spiritnal man is no 
, mere development of the natural man. He is 
_ @ New Creation born from Above. As well 
3 _ expect a hay infusion to become gradually — 
_ more and more living until in course of the 
_ process it reached Vitality,as expect a man by 
_ becoming better and better to attain the Eter- 
~nal Life. 
_ The advocates of Biogenesis i in Religion have 


 clusively on Scripture. The relation of the 
_ doctrine to the constitution and course of 
- Nature was’ not disclosed. Its importance, 
_. therefore, was solely as a dogma; and being 
_ directly concerned with theySupernatural, it 
- ‘was valid for those alone who chose to accept 
_ the Supernatural. 
- Yet it has been keenly felt by those who 
~ attempt to defend this doctrine of the origin of 
_ the Spiritual Life, that they have nothing more 
_ to oppose to the rationalistic view than the 
| tpse dizit of Revelation. The argument from 
_ experience, in the nature of the case, is seldom 
- easy to apply, and Christianity has always 
found at this point a genuine difficulty in meet- 
‘ing the challenge of Natural Religions. The 
direct authority « of Nature, using Nature in its 
_ limited sense, was not here to be sought for. 
_ On such a question its voice was necessarily 
_ silent; and all that the apologist could look 
: for lower down was a distant echo or analogy. 


‘founded their argument hitherto all but ex- 





All that is really -possibl 
analogy ; and if’ that. can 
Biogenesis, Christianity ini 
» tion secures at length a‘ 
» the Laws of Nature. i 
- Up to the present time the 
has not been ‘forthcoming, 
known parallel in Nature 
phenomena in question. — 
altered. With the elevat 
the rank of a scientifie fac 
cerning the Origin of Life a 
ent footing. And it remains 
Religion cannot at once re-< 
its argument in the light of # 

Ti the doctrine of the Sp 
tion of Spiritual Life can be 
‘grounds, it will mean the re 
serious enemy Christianity 
and especially within its o 
present. day. The religion of 
ably always suffered more 
have misunderstood than fron 
opposed it. Of the multitr 
- Christianity at this hour how 
in their minds the cardinal dis! 
lished by its Founder. between “ 
flesh” and “born of the -Spir 
many teachers of Christianity 
fundamental postulate persiste 
A thousand modern pulpits every 
are preaching the doctrine of 
Generation. The finest and best 
poetry is colored with this same ¢ 











he modern religious or irreligious novel; and 
much of the most serious and cultured writ- 

ing of the day devotes itself to earnest preach- 

‘ing of this impossible gospel. The current 
» conception of the Christian religion im short— 
the conception which is held not only popularly 
but by men of culture—is founded upon a view 
fits origin which, if it were true, would ren- 
ler the whole scheme abortive. 
Let us first place vividly in our imagination 
the picture of the two great Kingdoms of Na- 
_ ture, the inorganic and organic, as these now 
‘stand in the light of the Law of Biogenesis. 
What essentially is involved in saying that 
there is no Spontaneous Generation of Life ? 
It is meant that the passage from the mineral 
world to the plant or animal world is hermet- 
‘ically sealed on the mineral side. ‘This in- 
organic world is staked off from the living 
' world by barriers which have never yet been 
_ crossed from within. No change of substance, 
no modification of cuvironment, no cheinistry, 
no electricity, nor any form of energy, nor any- 
evolution can endow any single atom of the 
mnineral world with the attribute of Life, Only 
by bending down into this dead world of some 
living form can these dead atoms be gifted 
Le with the properties of vitality, without this 
preliminary contact with Life they remain 
fixed in the inorganic sphere forever. It is a 
very mysterious Law which guards in this 
way the portals of the living world. And if 
there is one thing in Nature more worth pon- 































4 
4 


} 
2 
Fi 
5 
@ 
4 
a 












8+ BIOGENESIS, - 


dering for its strangeness it is the Be YS 
this vast helpless world of the dead cut 
from the living by the Law of Biogenesi 
denied forever the possibility of resurre¢ oe 
within itself. So very strange a thing, indeed, 

is this broad line in Nature, that Scienee has ~ 
long and urgently sought to obliterate it. Bio- 


genesis stands -in the way of some forms of 


Evolution with such stern persistency that the 
assaults upon this Law for number and thor- — 
oughness have been unparalleled. But,as we ~ 
have seen, it has stood the test. Nature, to — 
the modern eye, stands broken in two. ‘The 
physical Laws may explain the inorganie 
world ; the biological Laws may account for the 
development of the or ganic. But of the point 
where they meet, of that strange borderland 
between the dead and the living, Science is si- 
lent. It isas if God had placed everything in 

earth and heaven in the hands of Nature, but. 
reserved a point at the genesis of Life for His 
direct appearing. 

The power of the analogy, for which we are 
laying the foundations, to seize and impress 
the mind, will largely depend on the vividness 
with which one realizes the gulf which Nature 
places between the living and the dead But 


* This being the crucial point itamay not be inappro- 
priate to supplement the quotations already giyen in the 
text with the following:— 

‘‘ We are in the presence of the one incommunicable 
gulf—the gulf of all gulfs—that gulf which Mr, Hux- 
ley’s protoplasm is as powerless to efface as any other 
material expedient that has ever been suggested since 





those © es in Prenton pia Nature, have 

ound their attention arrested by this extraor- 

7. - dinary dividing-line severing the visibie uni- 

verse eternally | into two; those who in watch- 

ing the progress of science have seen barrier 

_ after barrier disappear—barrier between plant 

- and plant, between animaland animal, and even 

_ betayeen animal and plant—bnt this eule 7 yawn 

~ more hopelessly wide with every advance of 

a ; knowledge, will be prepared to attach a signifi- 

' cance to the Law of Biogenesis and its an: ulogies 
more profound perhaps than to any other fact 

‘ # or law in Nature. If, as Pascal says, Nature 

_ is an image of grace; if the things that are 

SS ‘seen are in any sense the images “of the un- 

"seen, there must lie in this great eulf fixed, 

- this most unique and startling of ail natural | 

~ phenomena, a meaning of peculiar moment. 















‘the eyes of men first looked into it—the mighty guif 
BS is between death and life.’’—*t As Regards Protoplasm.” 
_ By J. Hutchinson Sterling, LL.D., p. 42. 
= ‘* The present state of knowledge furnishes us with 
~ no link between the living and the not-livine.”"—Hux- 
‘Tey, ** Encyclopedia Britannica”? (new Ed.). Art, 
_ ** Biology.”’ 
_ “Whoever recalls to mind the lamentable failure of 
- ali the attempts made very recentiy to discover a de- | 
cided support for the generatio cequiroca in the lower 
forms of transition from the inorganie to the organic 
world, will feel it doubly serious to demand that this 
theory, so utterly discredited, should be in any way ac- — 
cepted as the basis of all our views of life.”’—Virchow : 
“The Freedom of Science in the Modern State.’ ‘* All 
lly scientific experience tells us that life can be pro- 
ed from a living antecedent only.’’—** The Unseen 
iverse.”’ (6th Ed. p. 229. 


c a 
es ee 














CC Oe 


_ in the Unseen shall be likened this deep « 


-and no man can _ open ° This world of 









86 BIOGENESIS. 


Where now in the Spiritual chive e 
meet a companion phenomenon to this 


ing-line, or where in human experience is 
other barrier which never can be crossed? 
There is such a barrier. In the dim but not 
inadequate vision of the Spiritual World 
sented in the Word of God, the first thing that 
strikes the eye is a great cult fixed. They 
age from the Natural World to the Spiritual — 
World is hermetically sealed on the natural 
side. The door from the inorganie to the or- 
ganic is shut, no mineral Can open it; so the 
door from the natural to pi spiritual is shu 


natural men is staked off from the Spiritual 
World by barriers which have never yet been 
crossed from within. No organi¢e change, no 
modification of environment, no mental energy, 
no moral effort, no evolution of character, no- 
progress of civilization can endow any single 
human soul with the attribute of Spiritual — 
Life. The Spiritual World is guarded from 
the world next in order beneath ib by a law of 
Biogenesis—except a man be barn again . .~ 
except aman be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. 

It is not said in this enunciation of the law, 
that if the condition be not fulfilled the natural 
man will not enter the Kingdom of God. The 
word is cannot, For the exclusion of the 
spiritually inorganic from the Kingdom of the 
spiritually organic is not arbitrary. Noristhe ~ 
natural man refused admission on i in = 


















sil oy sian a mineral be born “from 
ibove””—from the Kingdom just adove it—it 
cannot enter the Kingdom just above it. And 
xcept aman be born “from above,” by the same 
law, he cannot enter the Kingdom just above 
him. There being no passage from one King- 





_ ganic, or from organic to spiritual, the inter- 


gy stone ora plant or an animal ora man is to pass 
- from a lower to a higier sphere. The plant 
a stretches down to the dead world beneath it, 
touches its minerals and gases with its mystery 
' of Life, and brings them up ennobled and 
transformed to the living sphere. The breath 
of God, blowing where it listeth, touches with 
~ its mystery, of Life the dead souls of men, 
% bears them across the bridgeless gulf between 
_ the natural and the spiritual, between the spir- 
- itually inorganic and the spiritually erganie, 
~ endows them with its own high qualities, and. 
- develops within them these new and secret 
faculties, by which those who are born again 
_ are said to see the Kingdom of God. >» 

_ What is the evidence for this great gulf 
fixed at the portals of the Spiritual World? 
Does Science close this gate, or Reason, or 
Experience, or Revelation? We reply, all 
four. The initial statement, it is not to be 
denied, reaches us from Revelation. But is 
- not this evidence here in court? Or shall it 
e said that any argument deduced from this 
is a transparent circle—that after all we simply 

















“dom to another, whether from inorganic to or-— 


vention of Life is a scientific necessity if a_ 





et, Mae . 

















“How substantial that argument real 











88 BIOGENESIS. — 


come back to the unsubstantiali of 
dixit. Not altogether, for the analoy 
altogether new authority to the 


seldom realized. We yield the 
much too easily. The right of. the ‘Spirit: 
wal, World to speak of its own phenomena - 
as secure as the right of the Natural World’ 
speak of itself. What is Science but what the 
Natural World has said to natural 
What is Revelation but what the Spiri 
World has said to Spiritual men? Let us at 
least ask what Revelation has announced with ~ 
reference to the Spiritual Law of Biogenesis; 
afterwards we shall inquire whether Science, ~ 
while endorsing the verdict, may not also have 
some further vindication of its title to- ‘be 
heard. i 
The words of Scripture which preface this xi 
inquiry contain an explicit and original state. 
ment of the Law of Biogenesis for the Spiritual it} 
Life. “Ie that hath the Son hath Life, and 
he that hath not the Son of God hath not 
Life.” Life, that is to say, depends upon con- 
tact with Life. It cannot spring up of itself, 
It cannot develop out of anything thatis not  ~ 
Life. There is no Spontaneous ‘Gongcntieg’ in (ae 
religion any more than in Nature. Christis ~~ 
the source of Life in the Spiritual World; and 
he that hath' the Son hath Life, and he that 
hath not the Son, whatever else he may nls: 
hath not Life. Here, in short, is the cat 
eal denial of Abiogenesis and the establishment 
in this high field. of the classical formula 4 





i me vivum ex ‘vivo—no Life without an- 
cedent Life. In this mystical theory of the 
rigin of Lite the whole of the New Testament 
writers are agreed. And, as we have already 
seen, Christ Himself founds Christianity upon. 
Biogenesis stated in its most literal form. 

_ “Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit he cannot entcyinto the Kingdom of 
God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; 

‘and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. 
Marvel not that { said unto you, ye must be 
- born again.” +? Why did He add Marvel not? 
- Did He seek to allay the fear in the bewildered 
~ ruler’s mind that there was more in this novel 
- doctrine than a simple analogy fromthe first 

_ to the second birth ? 




















ve el a : . 
- The attitude of the natural man, again, with « 


reference to the Spiritual, is a subject on which 
the New Testament is equally pronounced. 
Nat only in his relation to the spiritual man, 
but to the whole Spiritual World, the natural 
“man is regarded as dead. We is as a erystal 
to anorganism. The natural world is to the 
_ Spiritual as the inorganic to the organic. “To 
be earnally minded is Death.” ? “Thou hast a 


name to live, but art Dead.’* “She that. 


liveth in pleasure is Dead while she liveth.” ¢ 
“To you hath He given Life which were Dead 
in trespasses and sins.” 
It is clear that a remarkable ‘antec exists 
here between the Organic World as arranged 








1 John iii. 2 Rom, viii. 6. 3 Rey. iii, 1. 
4y'Tim, v. 6. Eph. ii. 1, 5. 











| ‘" Bran i the Spies 
by Scripture... W 
the thresholds of both. worltts, ° 
» entrance from a lower sphere sl 
place by a direct regenera 
emanating from the w world nex 1% 
There are not two laws of. 
the natural, the other for th 
‘law is for both. Wherever 
of any kind, this same law 
-alogy, ther efore, is only among th 
between laws there is. 10 an 
Continuity. In either ease, 
yeopling these worlds with 
iving forms is virtually mira 
_ ease is there less of my stery in i 
is seat 


‘the other. The second birt 
perplexing to the theologian 
» the embr yologist, 
A moment’s reflection usta 
it clear why in the Spiritual Y 
to be added to this my stery th e 


of R Sealatia. This i is the point 
scientific man is apt te part com 
» theologian... Ile insists on ha 
materialized before his eyes in ture 
Wature cannot discuss this with him, th 
~ nothing to discuss. But Nature ; 
_ this with him—only she. cannot open’ 
cussion or supply all the material # 
with, If Science averred that she ¢ 
- this, the theologian this’ time must] 
pany with such Science. For a 

































ch makes ooh a ceil is false to the 
trines of Biogenesis. What is this but the 
nand that a lower world , hermetically sevled 
nsf all communication with a’ world above 
should have a mature and intelligent ac- 
‘quaintance with its phenomena and laws ? 
Can the mineral discourse to me of «animal 
“Life? Can it tell me what lies beyond the 
“narrow boundary of its inert being? Know- 
‘ing nothing of other than the chemical and 
physical laws, what is its eriticism worth of 
‘the principles of Biology? And even when 
me visitor from the upper world, for example 
"some root from a living tree, penetrating its 
) dark recess, honors it with a touch, will it 
) presume to define the form and purpose of its 
‘patron, or until the bioplasm has done its gra- 
» cious work can it even know that it is being 
touched? The barrier which separates King- 
~ doms from one another restricts mind not less 
‘than matter. Any information of the King- 
-doms above it that could come to the miner: al 
_world could only come by a communication 
- from above. An analogy from the lower world 
_ might make such communication intelligible 
as well as credible, but the information in the 
‘first instance must be vouchsafed as a revela- 
tion. Similarly if those in the Organic King- 
dom are to know anything of the Spiritual 
- World, that knowledge must at least begin as 
"Revelation. Men who reject this source of 
nformation, by the Law of Biogenesis, can 
jave no other. It is no spell of ignorance 
whitrarily laid upon certain members of the 


4 









Organic Kingdom that p 
the secrets of the Spirit 
scientific necessity.. No ex 
could be more truly scientific 
“natural man receiveth no 
Spirit of God; for they are 
him: neither cun he know 
are spiritually discerned, es 
it. will be again observed, ie 
is not a dogma of theology, 
Science. And Science e, for the mo 
consistently accepted the situa 

always proclaimed its igno 
fiual World. When Mr. I 
affirms, “Regarding Science 
increasing sphere we may say 
tion to its surface does but bring: 
contact with surrounding nescl 
his standpoint he is quite 
deayors of w ell-meaning pers 
the Agnostic’s position, when he 
ignorance of the Spiritual Worl 
pretence ; the attempts to proy: 
knows a creat deal about it if 
adinit it, are quite misplaced. 
not know: The verdict that’ 
receiveth not the things of th 
that they are foolishness unto him, t 
can he know them, is final as a stateme 
scientific. truth—a statement on wh 
entire Agnostic: literature is simply 
cominentary. 


1] Cor. ii. 14, 






































. 
; ¢ 
i 
x 


; 
; 
i 


» out the more practical bearings of Biogenesis. 


‘a - . * - 

There is an immense region. surrounding 
- Regeneration, a dark and perplexing region 
_ where men would be thankful for any light. 


» It may well be that Biogentsis in its many 





ramifications may yet reach down to some of 
the deeper mysteries of the Spiritual Life. 
But meantime there is much to define even on 
the surface. And for the present we shall 
content ourselves by turning its light upon 
one or two points of current interest. 

It must long ago have appeared how decisive. 


is the answer of Science to the practical ques- 


tion with which we set out as to the possi- 
bility of a Spontaneous Development of Spir- 
itual Life in the individual soul. The inquiry 
into the Origin of Life is the fundamental 
question alike of Biology and Christianity, 
We can afford to enlarge upon it, therefore, 
even at the risk of repetition. When men are 


_ offering us a Christianity without a living 
_. Spirit, and a personal religion without conver- 


Ly aes 





sion, no emphasis or reiteration can be extreme. 
Besides, the clearness as well as the definite- 
ness of the Testimony of Nature to any Spir- 
itual truth .is of immense importance. Re- 
generation has not merely been an outstand- 
ing difficulty, bat an overwhelming obscurity. 
Eyen to earnest minds the difficulty of grasp- 
ing the truth at all has always proved extreme. | 


_ Philosophically one scarcely sees either the 
necessity or the possibility of being born 
a 


gain. Why a virtuous man should not 


own right he enter the Kingdom 
what thousands honestly and sincerely 
understand. Now Philosophy cannot help uz ~ 
here. Her arguments are, ifanything, against 
us. But Science answers to the appeal a 
once. If it be simply pointed out that this is 
the same absurdity as to ask why a stone 
should not grow more and more living till it 
enters the Organic World, the point is clea 
in an instant. he tap 
What now, let us ask specifically, dis 
tinguishes a Christian man from a non- ~ 
Christian man? Is it that he has certain © 
mental characteristics not possessed by the ~ 
other? Is it that certain faculties have been 
trained in him, that morality assumes special 
and higher manifestations, and character a 
nobler form? Is the Christian merely an 
ordinary man who happens from birth to have — 
been surrounded with a peculiar set of ideas ? 
Is his religion merely that peculiar quality of 
the moral life defined by Mr. Matthew Arnold — 
as “morality touched by emotion?” And does ~ 
the possession of a high, ideal, benevolent 
‘sympathies, a reverent spirit, and a favorable 
environment account for what men call his — 
Spiritual Life ? ne 
The distinction between them is the same as 
that between the Organic and the Inorganic, 
the living and the dead. What is the differ, 
ence between a crystalLand an organism, 4 
stone and a plant? They*have much in com. © 


mon. Both are made of the same atoms, ~ 
































OOGENESIS. 


"te display the same properties of matter. 
oth are subject to the Physical Laws. Both 
May be very beautiful. But besides possess- 
ing all that the crystal has, the plant possesses 
something more—a myster ious something 
alled Life. This Life is not something which 
isted in the crystal only in a less developed 
form. There is nothing at all like it_in the 
rstal. There is nothing like the first be- 
nning of it in the crystal, not a trace or 
symptom of it. This plant is tenanted by 
something new, an original and unique posses- 
sion added over and above all the properties 
mmon to both. When from vegetable Life 
e rise to animal Life, here again we find 
something original and unique—unique at 
least as compared - with the mineral. From 
animal Life we ascend again to Spiritual Life. 
And here also is something new, something 
still more unique. He who lives the Spiritual 
Life has a distinct kind of Life added to all the 
other phases of Life which he manifests—a 
kind of Life infinitely more distinct than is the 
active Life of a plant from the inertia of a 
stone. The Spiritual man is more distinct in 
point of fact than is the plant from the stone. 
This is the one possible comparison in Nature, 
or it is the wildest distinction in Nature; but 
mpared with the difference between the 
atural and the Spiritual the gulf which di- 
des the organie from the inorganic is a hair’s- 
eadth. The natural man belongs essentially 
this present order of things. He is endowed 
Ply with a high one of the natural animal 





36 













Life. Butit is Life of so poor a quality th 
not Life at all. He that hath not the Son. 
not Life; but he that hath the Son hath 
—a new and distinct and supernatural endo 
ment. He is not of this world. He is of the © 
timeless state, of Eternity. J¢ doth not yet sche 7 
pear what he shall be. 4 
The difference then between the Spiritual 
man and the Natural man is not a difference: 
of development, but of generation. Tt is a dis- 
tinction of quality not of quantity. A man ~ 
cannot rise by any natural development from — 
“morality touched by emotion,” to “morality — 
touched by Life.” Were we to construct a 
scientific classification, Science would compel — 
us to arrange all natural men, moral orimmoral, 
educated or vulgar, as one-family, One might 
be high in the family troup, another ‘ow yet, ~ 
practically, they are marked hy the same set — 
of characteristics—they eat, sleep, work, think, 
live, die. But the Spirituat man is removed — 
from his family sc utterly by the possession of — 
an additional characitcristic that uw biologist, 
fully informed of the whole circumstances, 


would not hesitate a moment to classify him — 


elsewhere, Andif he really entered into these 
circumstances it would not be in another family © 
but in another Kingdom, It is an old-fashioned 
theology which divides the world in this wa 
—which speaks of men as Living.and Dead, ~ 
Lost and Saved—a stern theology all but fallen ~ 
into disuse. This difference between the Liy- 
ing and the Dead in souls is so unproved by ~ 
casual observation, so impalpable in itself, se 













--ploge? NESIS. 


. eset as a ibcialaia, that schools of culture 
have ridiculed or denied the grit distinction. 
Nevertheless the grim distinctiou must be re- 
tained. It is a scientific distinction. “He 
that hath not the Son hath not Life.” 

_* Now it is this great Law which finally dis- 
PP piamishes Shri tianity from all other religions. 
It pl-res the religion of Christ upon a footing 
_altogother unique. 

There is no analogy betwcen the Christian 
- Teligion and, say, Buddhism or the Moham- 
- medan religion. There is no true sense in 
which a man can say, He that hath Buddha 
hath Life. Buddha has nothing to do wih 
Life. He may have something to do with mo- 
_ ‘ality. He may stimulate, impress, teach, 
Aap but there is no distinct new thing added 
_ to the souls of those who profess Buddhism. 
_ These religions may be developments of the 
- natural, mental, or moral man. But Christi- 
anity professes to be more. Itis the mental 
or moral man plus something else or some One 
else. It is the infusion into the Spiritual man 
of a New Life, of a quality unlike anything . 
else in Nature. This constitutes the separate 
Kingdom of Christ, and gives to Christianity 
alone of all the religions of mankind the 
_ strange mark of Divinity. 

Shall we next inquire more precisely what 
is this something extra which constitutes 
_ Spiritual Life? What is this strange and new 
endowment in its nature and vital essence‘ 
And the answer is brief—it is Christ. He 
1: hoes the Son hath Life. — 


i 


ft dt EW TO Oe eae SPR 


id “iba Trae —— 


Fs 


ed 

















f 
4 
’ 
. 

i 











98 


Are we forsaking the lines 
saying so? Yes and No, Seience has di 
for us the distinction. It has no™ asi t 
the nature of the distinction except this—t 
the new endowment is a something differ 
from anything else with which it deal 
not ordinary V itality, it is not intellen tials KS 
is not moral, but something beyond. exer 
Revelation steps in and names what it i: 
Christ. Out of the multitude of sen 
where this annouicement is made, these ; 
inay be selected: “Know ye not your own || 
selves how that Jesus Christ\is tn one 
“Your bodies are the members. of Choi rist,? 4 
« At that day ye shall know that IT am in the 
Father, and ye in Me, and Lin you.”* “We 
will come unto him and make our abode with — 

i 
Bs 





him.” “Jam the Vine, ye are the branches.” # * 
“Tam crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, : 
yet not I, but Christ liv eth in me.” ® Sa 
Three things are clear from these state- 4 
4 

4 





ments: First, They are not mere figures of 
rhetoric, They are explicit declarations. If 
language means anything these words an- — 
nounce a literal fact. In some of Christ’s own : 
statements the literalism is if possible anny 
more impressive. For instance, “Except ye 

eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink Me. a 
blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth 
My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal 
life; and I will raise him up at the last aay. } 








1 2Cor. xii. 5. ~21Cor. vi. 15. 8 John erie fe. 
4 Jobn xiv. 21-23, 5 John xv. 4. § Gal. ii, 20. — — 


” My flesh ti Lasat fica Ae ee blood j is 
nk indeed. He that eateth My flesh and 
rinketh My blood dwelleth in Me and Lin 





~ In: the sana place, Spiritual Life is “not 
‘something outside ourselves. The idea is not 
that Christ “is in heaven and that we can 
Stretch out some mysterious faculty and deal 
_ with Ilim there. ‘This is the vague form in 
which many conceive the truth, but it is con- 
3 trary to Christ’s teaching and tothe analogy 
- of nature. Vegetable Life is not. contained im 
i a reservoir somewhere in the skies, and mens- 
ou ured ont spasmodic ally at certain seasons. 
: The Life is ia every plant and tree, inside its 
_ own substance and tissues, and continues there . 
until itdies. This localization of Life in the . = 
‘Andividual is precisely the point where Vitality . 5 
differs from the other forces of nature, such as 5 
magnetism and electricity. Vitality has much ¥ 
in common with such forces as magnetism ‘ 
_ and electricity, but there is one. inviolible dis-— : 
 tinetion between them—that Life is perma. 9.) a 
» nently fixed-and rooted in the organisin. The 
doctrines of conservation and transformation 
of energy, that is to say, do not hoid for 
_ Vitality. The electrician can demagnetize a 
bar of iron, that is, he can transform its energy 
- of magnetism into something else—heat, or 
a “motion, or light—and then re-form these back 
__ into magnetism. - For magnetism: has no root, 
* no individnality, no fixed indwelling. Dut the 
~ plogist cannot devitalizea plant or an animal — 





owe, Stop We DS 


100 BIOGENE. 


and revivify it again.’ Life is not : 
homeless forces which promiscuous 
space, or which can be gathered likeeé 


electricity 
from the clouds and dissipated back again: 
into space. Life is definite and resident; and ~ 
Spiritual Life is not a visit from a fours but mt 


resident tenant in the soul. 


This is, however, to formulate the statement . 
of the third point, that spiritual Life is not: an 


ordinary form of energy or force. The analogy 
from Nature endorses this, but here Nature 






stops. It cannot say what Spiritual Life is 


Indeed what natural Life is remains unknown, 
and the word Life still wanders through 


Science without a definition. Nature is silent, * 


therefore, dnd must be as to Spiritual Life 
But in the absence of natural light we | 
back upon that complementary vovelaaien 
which always shines when truth is necessary 
and where Nature fails. "We ask with Paul 
when this Life first visited him on the Da- 
mascus road, What is this? “ Whoart Thou, 
Lord?” And we hear, “I am Jesus.” ? 


We must expect to find this denied. Be. — 


sides a proof from Revelation, this is an argu- 


ment from experience. And yet we shall still. 


1One must not be misled by popular statements in 
this connection, such as this of. Professor Owen's : 
“There are organisms which we ean devitalize and re- 


vitalize—devive and revive—many times.’’ (Monthly ~ 


Microscopical Journal, May, 1869, p. 294.) The refer- 
ence is of course to the extraordinary capacity for fe 
citation possessed by many of the Protozoa peecrce 
low forms of life. 

2 Acts ix. 5, 





‘ 



























Vhs 

karan this gniritual Life is a force. Bui 
let it be remembered what this means in 
~ Seience, it means the heresy of confounding 
Force with Vitality. We must also expect to 
ye toid that this Spiritual Life is simply a 
evelopment of ordinary Life—just as Dr. 
astian tells us that natural Life is formed 
according to the same laws which determine_ 
the more : simple chemical combinations. But 
remember what this means in Science. It is 
the heresy of Spontaneous Generation, a heresy 
so thoroughly discredited now that scarcely 
“an authority in Europe will Jend his name to 
it. Who art Thou, Lord? Unless we are to 
be allowed to hold Spontaneops Generation 






iy 


from Life: “I am Jesus.” 

. A hundred other questions now rush into 
the mind about this Life: How does it come? 
Why does it come? How is it manifesied? 
What faculty does it employ? Where does it 
reside? Is it communicable? What are its 
conditions? One or two of these questions 
may be vaguely answered, the rest bring us 
_ face to face with mystery. Let it not be 
_ thought that the scientific treatment of a 
Spiritual subject has’ reduced religion to a 
' problem of pbysies, ‘or demonstrated God 
y the laws of biology. A _ religion without 
stery is an absurdity. Even Science has 


round this Science of Life. It taught us 
oner or later to expect mystery, and now we 
its domain. Let it be carefully marked, 


» there is no alternative: Life can only come 


its” mysteries, none. more inscrutable than — 











4 
y 
- 













ous truth of Religion—that Christ is 
Christian. 
Not that there is anything new in this. , 
Churehes have always held that Christ’ was — 
the source of Life. No spiritual man ever 
claims that his spirituality is his owns “I 
live,” he will tell you; “nevertheless it is not 
I, but Christ liveth in me” Christ our Life | no 
has indeed ‘been the only doctrine in the 
Christian Church from Paul to Augustine, from — SF 
Calvin to Newman. Yet, when the Spiritual” 
man is cross-examined upon this confession ib” 
is astonishing to find what uncertain hold a 
has upon his mind. Doctrinally he states it 
adequately and holds it unhesitatingly. But 
when pressed with the literal question he — 
shrinks from the answer. Wedo not really 
believe that the Living Christ has touched — 
us, that’ He makes His abode in us. Spiritual — 
Life is not as real to us as natural Life. And 
we cover our retreat into unbelieving vagueness 
with a plea of reverence, justified, as wethink, 
by the “Thus far and no farther” of ancient — 
Scriptures. There is often a great deal of 
intellectual sin concealed under this old A 
a 
7 










aphorism. When men do not really wish to ~ 
go farther they find it an honorable con-— 
-venience sometimes to sit down on the outer- 
most edge of the Holy Ground on the pretext 
of taking off their shoes. Yet we must be ; 
certain that, making a virtue of reverence, we: £9 

are not merely excusing ignorance ; o under — 


= 





























_of mystery, ne ga beth, nian tee 
ated in the New Testament a hundred. 
times, in the most literal torm, and with all 
ut monotonous repetition. The greatest 
maths are always the most loosely held. And 
\ not the least of the advantages of taking up 
this question from the present standpoint 19a 
Shat we may see how a confused doctrine can 
really bear the luminons definition of Science 
and force itself upon us with all the weight of — 
Natural Law. 
What is mystery to many men, what feeds» 
; - their worship, and at the same time spoils if, 
Js that area round all great truth which is 
1 | yeally capable of illumination, and into which — 
every earnest mind is permitted and com- 
manded to go with alight. We cry mystery ,_ 
- long before the region of} mystery comes. True’) — 
Mystery casts no shadows around. It is a) 
sudden and awful gulf yawning across the field 
_ of knowledge; its form is irregular, but its lips” 
are clean ent and sharp, and the mind ean vi 
_ to the very-verge and look down the pr ciple am 
into the dim abyss,— 












me. 





fork “ Where writhing clouds warotl 
‘Striving to utter themselves in shapes.” 












We have gone with a light to the very verge of 
this truth.» We have seen that the Spiritual 
Life is an endowment from the Spiritual World, © 
and that the Living RP of Christ dwells in 
the Christian. But now the gulf yawns black 
petore us. ae hat more does Science know of 





i ees NEN eet tet aS ie ek ne eige es 
; = Fe I baa ae Garr 8 





rae a  ae 
tes, 


; vo 
104 BIOGENESIS, 
Life? Nothing. It knows nothi 
about its origin in detail. It knows 
about its ultimate nature. It cannot even 


define it. There is a helplessness in scientific 






books here, and a continual confession of rae 
which to thoughtful minds is almost touching. ~ 
Science, therefore, has not eliminated the true — 


mysteries from our faith, but only the false. 
And it has done more. It has made true mys- 


tery scientific. Religion in having mystery is 


aa 


in analogy with all around it. Wherethereis — 
exceptional mystery in the Spiritual world it — 


will generally be found that there is a cor- 


responding mystery in the natural world. — 


And, as Origen centuries ago imsisted, the ~ 


difficulties of Religion are simply the difficulties 
of Nature. ‘ 
One question more we may look at for a 


moment. Whatcan be gathered on the surface — 


as to the process of Regeneration in the in- 


diyidual soul? From the analogies of Biology — 
we should expect three things: First, that the — 


New Life should dawn suddenly; Second, that 
it should come “ without observation ”; Third, 
that it should develop gradually. On two of 
these points there can be little controversy. 
The gradualness of growth is a characteristic 


which strikes the simplest observer. Longbe- — 


fore the word Evolution was coined Christ 


applied it in this very connection—“ First the — 
blade, then the ear, then the full com in the ~ 


ear.” It is well known also to those who stud 


the parables of Nature that there is an ascend- 4 


_/ing scale of slowness as we rise in the scale of 





Sere a eee aero 








i 


wt 







ae 
P 





Life. Growth is most gradual in the highest 
forms. Man attains his maturity after a score 
wf years ; the monad completes its humble cycle 
ina day. What wonder if development. be 
 tenty 1 in the Creature of Eternity? A Chris- 
_tian’s sun has sometimes set, and a critical 
world has seen as yet no cornin the ear. As | 
yet? “As yet,” in this long Life, has not 
begun. Grant him the years proportionate to 
his place in the scale of Life. “The time of 
harvest is not yet.” ee 
_ Again, in addition to beigslow,the phenom- 
ena of growth are secret. Life is invisible. 9 _ 
» When the New Life manifests itself it is a 
surprise. Z/ou canst not tell whence it cometh 
vr whither it goeth. When the plant lives 
twhence has the Life come? When it dies Oy 
iwhither has it gone? Tho canst not tell. . . 
to ts every one that is born of the Spirit. 
For the Kingdom.of God cometh without ob- — 
nervution. 
Yet once more,—and this is a point of 
strange and frivolous dispute,—this Life comes . 
_ ‘$uddenly. This is the only way in which Life. — 
' . 8ancome. Life cannot come gradually—health 
__ #an, structure can, but not Life. A new the- 
Ylogy has laughed at the Doctrine of Conver- : 
sion. Sudden Conversion especially has been 
*idiculed as untrue to philosophy and impos- 
sible to human nature. We may not be econ- Sify 
_ #erned in buttressing any theology because if 
q *s old. But we find that this old theology is 
_ scientific. ‘There may be cases—they are prob- As i 
ubly in the majority—where the momentof 
Se a 

















































intact with the Living Spirit 
_ has been obscure. But the real. m« 







“4 Science pronounces nothing as ‘ : 
scious moment. Ifit did it would probabl: 
>. that that was seldom the real moment—ju 
in the natural Life the conscious moment } 
the real moment. The moment-of birth in the 
natural world is not a conscious moment—we | 
do not know we are born till long afterward, 
Yet there are men to whom the Origin of the 
New-Life in time has been no difficulty. Ti 
_ Paul, for instance, Christ seems to have come 
cata definite period of time, the exact moment — 
and second of which could have been known, 
' And this is certainly, in theory at least, the ee 
» ~ Mormal Origin of, Life, according to the prin. 
» | ciples of Biology. The line between the livin 

_. -and the dead is a sharp-line. When the dea 

, atoms of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Witsoe 
are seized upon by Life, the organism at first 
is very lowly. It possesses few functions. It 
has little beauty. Growth is the work of time. 
‘But Life is not. That comes in a momen — 
At one moment it was dead ; the next it lived. — 
_ This is conversion, the “passing,” as the Bible 
' galls it, “from Death unto Life.’ Thos> who — 
have stood by another’s side at the solemn — 
hour of this dread possession have been con- | 
scious sometimes of an experience which wordS __ 
are not allowed to utter—a something like the 
sudden snapping of a chain, the waking aE Noa" 
a dream. ; 
















ned ba 
Sa a a 


oe 


rep os ee 











ss 


ies by the field of the oth and . 


yard of the man void of understanding 5 


all grown over vith thorns, and neti'es ha 

face thereof, and the stone wal) i eof 
lown. Then Isaw and considered i. w 

upon it and received instruction.” —SoL 





DEGENERATION. 





nee shall we escape if we neglect so great salva- 
- flon . ”"—Hebrews, 
_.  **We have as possibilitics either Balance, or Elabora- 
tion, or Degeneration.” —E. Ray Lankester, 








_ In one of his best known books, Mr. Darwin 
_ brings outa fact which may be illustrated in 
_ some such way as this: Suppose a bird fan- 
- eier collects a flock of tame pigeons distin- 
gua by all the infinite ornamentations of, — 
their race. They are of all kinds, of every £4 
_ shade of color, and adorned with every variety 
of marking. He takes them to an uninhabited 
- island and allows them to fly off wild into the — 
~ woods. They founda colony there, and after ( 
the lapse of many years the owner returns to 
the spot. He will find that a remarkable 
* change has taken place in the interval. The 
birds, or their descendants rather, have all be- 
come changed into the same color. The black, 
the white and the dun, the striped, the spot- 
ted, and the ringed, are all metamorpliosed 
into one—a dark slaty blue. Two plain black 
bands monotonously repeat themselves upon 
the wings of each, and the loins beneath are 
white; but all the variety, all the beautiful 
colors, alt the old graces of form it may be, | 
fed ‘ 3 





. 





























Tate disappeared, These impror 
the result of care and nurture, of don 
tion, of civilization ; and now that these infl 
> €nces are removed, ‘the birds themselves undo 
the past and lose what they had gained. The 
attempt to elevate the race has been myste 

' ously thwarted. It is asif the original bi ; 
» the far remote ancestor of all doves, had been 

_ dine, and these had been compelled by som } 

strange law to discard the badges of their 

civilization and conform to the ruder i image of 

the first. The natural law by which such a 

- change occurs is called The Principle of Re 

version to Type. 

It is a proof of the universality of this law 
that the same thing will happen with a plant. 
A garden is planted, let us say, with straw- 

_ berries and roses, and for a number of years” 
is left alone. In process of time it will run to — 
waste. - But this oes not mean that the — 
plants will really waste away, but that they 
will change into something else, and, as it in- 
variably appears, into something worse; im 
the one case, namely, into the small, wild 
strawberry of the woods, and in the other into 
the primitive dog-rose of the hedges. 

If we neglect » garden plant, then, a natural — 

_ principle of deterioration comes in, and changes 
it into a worse plant. And if we neglect a 

bird, by the same imperious law it will be 

gradually changed into an uglier bird. Orif 
we neglect almost any of the domestic ani- 
mals, they will rapidly revert to wild and 
worthless forms again. 
















































fe Now the same thing exactly would happen 
' fn the case of you or me. Why should Maa 


be an exception to any of the laws of Nature? 
- Nature knows him simply as an animal—Sub- 
kingdom Vertebrata, Class Mammalia, Order 
Bimana. And the law of Reversion to Type 
runs through all creation: If a man ‘neglect 
himself for a few years he will change into 
a worse man anda lower man. If it is his 
body that he neglects, he will deteriorate 
into a wild and bestial savage—like the de- 


humanized men-who are discover ed sometimes ~ 


upon desert islands. If itis his mind, it wilt 
degenerate into imbecility and madness—soli- 
tary confinement has the power te unmake 
men’s minds and leave them idiots. If he 


neglect his conscience, it will run off into law. _ 


lessness and vice. Or, lastly, if it is his soul, 


‘it must inevitably atrophy, drop off in ruin 


and decay. 

We have here, then, a thoroughly natural 
basis for the question before us. If we neglect, 
with this universal principle staring us in the 
face, how shall we escape? If we neglect the 
ordinary means of keeping a garden in order, 
how shall it escape running to weeds and 


waste? Or, if we neglect the opportunities 


for cultivating the mind, how shall it escape 
ignoraiice and feebleness ? So, if we neglect 
the soul, how shall it escape the natural ret. 
rograde movement, the inevitable relapse into 
barrenness and death ? 


' Tt is not necessary, surely, to pause for 
Baars that there is such a retrograde principle - 





\ 
; 
d 











ih 
112 DEGENERATION, 


in the being of every man. It is demonstrat. 
ed by facts, and by the analogy of all Nature. 
Three possibilities of life, according to Science, 
are open to all living organisms—Balance,~ — 
Evolution, and Degeneration. The first 
denotes the precarious persistence of a life 
along what looks like a level path, a character 
‘which seems to hold its own alike against the 
attacks of evil and the appeals of good. It 
implies a set of circumstances so balanced by 
choice of fortune that they neither influence 
for better nor for worse. But exceptin theory 
this state of equilibrium, normal in the inor- ~ 
ganic kingdom, is really foreign in the world 

of life; and what seems inertia may be atrue 
Evolution unnoticed from its slowness, or 
likelier still a movement of Degenerationsubtly  __ 
obliterating as it falls the very traces of its 
former height. From this state of apparent 
Balance, Evolution is the escape in the up- 
ward direction, Degeneration in the lower, 
~ But Degeneration, rather than Balance or 
Elaboration, is the possibility of life embraced 
by the majority of mankind. And the choice 
is determined by man’s own nature. The life 
of Balance is difficult. It lies on the verge of 
continual temptation, its perpetual adjust 
ments become fatiguing, its measured virtue: 
js monotonous and uninspiring. More diffi- 
eult still, apparently, is the life of ever upward 
growth. Most men attempt it for a time, but 
growth is slow; and despair overtakes them 
while the goal i: far away. Yet none of these 
reasons fully explains the fact that the alter- 





"ee SD abt as 































jority f men. That Degeneration is easy only 
half accounts forit. Why is it easy? Why 
but that already in each man’s’ very nature 
this principle is supreme? He feels within his 
soul a silent drifting motion impelling him 
downward with irresistible force. Instead of 
aspiring to Conversion toa higher Type he sub- 
mits by a law of his nature to Reversi n to a 
lower. This is Degeneration—that principle 
_ by which the organism, failing to devel pits~’”, 
failing even to keep what it has got, deterio- 
; rates, and becomes more and more adapted 
to a degraded form of life. 
» All men who know themselves are conscious 
| that this tendency, deep-rooted and ctive, 
exists within their nature. Theologically it is 
- described as a gravitation, a bias toward evil. 
The Bible view is that man js conceived in sin 
and shapen in iniquity, And experience tells 
_ him that he will shape himself into further sin 
and ever-deepening iniquity without the small- 
» est effort, without in the least intending it, 
-. and in the most natural way in the world if 
he simply let his life run. It is on this prin- 
_ ciple that, completing the conception, the 
_ wicked are said further in the Bible to be lost. 
They are not really lost as yet, but they are on 
_ the sure way toit. The bias of their lives is 
in full action. There is no drag on anywhere. 
The natural tendencies are having it all their 
_ own way; and although the victims may be 
| quite unconscious that all this As going on, it 


_DEGHNERATION. igre Wh a 


native ehien: remains is “ailopted by the ma- | 










114 DEGENERATION. : 


natural bearings of the case that “the 
these things is Death.” When we see a man 
fall from the top of a five-story house, we say ~ 
the man is lost. We say that before he has 
fallen a foot; for the same principle that made 
him fall the one foot will undoubtedly make 
him complete the deseent by fallin other _ 
eighty or ninety feet. So that he is a dead 
man, or a lost man from the very first. The. 
gravitation of sin in a human soul acts pre- 
cisely in the same way. Gradually, with 
gathering momentum it ‘sinks a man futther © 
and further from God and delaras and © 
lands him. by the sheer action of a nat a 
law, in ‘he hell of a neglected life, 

But the .esson is not less clear from an 4 
Apart even from the law of Desoncuene i 
apart from Reversion to Type, there is in every 
living organism a law of Death. We are wont © 
to imagine that Nature is full of Life. In 7 
reality it is mull of Death. One cannot say 16 
is natural for a plant to live. Examine its 
nature fully,and you have to admit that its 
natural tendency is to die. It is kept from ~ 
dying by a mere temporary endowment, which = 
gives it an ephemeral dominion over the ele- 4 
ments—gives it power to utilize for a brief © 
span the 1 rain, the sunshine, and the air. With- ~ 
draw this temporary endowment for a moment _ 
and its true nature is revealed. Instead of 
overcoming Nature it is overcome. The very © 
things which appeared to minister to its growth 7 
and beauty now turn against it and make Me a 
decay and die. The sun which Mast wy 




























it; the air and rain which nourished 
it, rot it. Tt is the very forces which we asso- 
tte with life which, when their true nature 
pears, are discovered to be really the min- 
ers of death. 


world, is also valid for the'animal and for man. 
' Air is not lif, but corruption—so literally cor- 
ruption “hat the only way to keep out corrup- 
_tion, when life has ebbed, is to keep out air. 
NK Life is merely a tempoiary suspension of these 
i destructive powers. and this is truly one of 
the most accurate definitions of life we have 
"yet received—* the sum total of the functions 
~ which resist death.” 
_ Spiritual lit , in like manner, is the sum 
total of the fancf‘ons which resist sin. The 
soul’s atmospher- is the daily trial, circum- 
y ‘stance, and temptation of the world. And as 
it is life alone w’ ic gives the plant power to 
utilize the elem~ ’s, ‘and as, without it, they 
> utilize it, soit is the piritual life alone which 
ives the soul power to utilize temptation and 
Siar and without it they destroy the soul. 
_ How shall we escape if we refuse tc exercise 












_ This destroying process, observe, goes on 
' quite independently of God’s judgment on sin. 
_God’s judgment on sin is another and a more 


is a distinct fact by itself, which we can hold 
d examine separately, that on purely natural 
ciples the soul that is left to itself un- 
ed, uncultivated, unredeemed, must fall 


This law, which is true for the whole plant- 


these functions—in other words, if we neglect? _ 


‘ _ awful fact of which this may be a part. But © 








[Stora S, 


"A 


ee 
Sa 5 eee” 


ee 











fe 


Se ae 





- for justice, and carrying out her heavy sen- 








116 DEGENERATIO 


away into death By its own enteral The 
that sinneth “it shall die” It shall die, not — 
necessarily bevause God passes cen ue si 
death upon it, but because it eannot hel 
It has neglected “the functions vii eae resist f 
death,” and has always been dying. The 
punishment is in its very nature, and the sen- 
tence is being gradually carried out all along 
the path of life by ordinary processes which 
enforce the verdict with the appalling faithful. 
ness of law. i 
There is an affectation that religious truths — ‘ 
lie beyond the sphere of the comprehension 
which serves men in ordinary things. This 
question at least must be an exception, Itlies 
as near the natural as the spiritual If it 
makes no impression on a man to know that 
God will visit his miquities upon him, he cans 
not blind himself to the fact that Nature will . 
Do we not all know what it is to be punished 
by Nature for disobeying her? We have 
looked round the wards of a hospital, a prison, 
or a madhouse, and seen there Nature at work | 
squaring her accounts with sin. Andweknew ~~ 
as we looked thatif no Judge sat onthe throne 
of heaven at all there was a Judgment there, 
where an inexorable Nature was crying aloud 


tences for violated laws. 

When God gave Nature the law into her 
own hands in this way, He seems to have 
given her two rules upon which her sentences 
were to be based. The one is formally enun- — 
ciated in this sentence, ‘“ WHATSOEVER A MAN 


































YWETH THAT SHALL HE ALSO REAP.” The 
ther is informally expressed in this, “Ir wz 
‘NEGLECT HOW SHALL WE ESCAPE?” . 
The first is the positive law, and deals with 
sins of commission. The other, which we are 
‘now discussing, is the negative, and deals with 
sins of omission. It does not say anything 
about sowing, but about not sowing. It takes 
up the case of souls which are lying fallow. 
It does not say, if we sow corruption we shall 
reap corruption. Perhaps we would not be so 
unwise, so regardless of ourselves, of public 
- opinion, as to sow corruption. It does not say, 
if we sow tares we shallreap tares. We might 
never do anything so foolish as sow tares. 
_ But if we sow nothing, it says, we shall reap 
~ nothing. If we put nothing into the field, we » 
_ shall take nothing out. If we negleot to cul-, 
tivate in summer, how shall we escape starv- 
_ ing in winter? 
_ Now the Bible raises this question, but does 
’ not answer it—because itis too obvious to need 
answering. How shall we escape if we neg- 
lect? The answer is, we cannot. In the 
nature of things wecannot. We cannot escape 
any more than a man can escape drowning 
_ who falls into the sea and has neglected to 
learn to swim. In the nature of things he 
cannot escape—nor can he escape who Has 
neglected the great salvation. 

Now why should such fatal consequences 
' follow a simple process like neglect? The 
- popular impression is that a man, to be what 
is called lost, must be an open and notorious 








- sinner, He muah be, one. 


ue Tf we sss ba * 

why a notoriously wicked person. i nile 
escape; but why should not all the m 
escape? What is to hinder people wh 
not notoriously wicked escaping—people 
never sowed anything i particular 

is it such a sin to sow nothing in particu 

There must be some. hidden and vital r 
tion between these three words, Salvati 
Neglect, and Escape—some reasonabl 
sential, and indissoluble connection. oy 
are these words so linked together as to weight” 
this clause with all the authority and Soloman 
of a sentence of death ? 

The explanation has partly been give 
already. It lies still further, however, in the 
meaning of the word Salvation. And this, of © 
course, is not at all Satvation in the ordin 
sense of forgiveness of sin., This is one greg 
meaning of Salvation, the first and the greatest. 
But this is spoken to ‘people who are supposed 
to have had this. It is the broader word, 
therefore, and includes not. only forgiveness of ~ 
sin but salvation or deliverance from the down- — 
ward bias of the soul. It takes in that whole 
process of rescue from the power of sin and 
selfishness that should be going on from day 
to day in every human life. We have 

_ that there is a natnral principle in man lower 
ing him, deadening him, pee him s eee 


rH * 

































, searing | conscience, par aly zing will. 
is the active destroying principle, or Sin. 
yw to counteract this, God lias discovered. tc 
IS another principle which will stop this drift- 
a ng process in the soul, steer it round, and make 
‘it th the other way. This is the active sav- 
¢ principle, or Salvation. Ifa man find the 
st of these powers furiously at work within 
im, dragging his whole life downward to de- 
truction, ‘there is only one way to escape his 
3—to ‘take resolute hold of the upward 
a ower, and be borne by it to the opposite goal. 
~And as this second power is the only one in 
‘the universe which has the slightest real effect 
‘upon the first, how shall-a man escape if he 
neglect it ? Yo neglect itis to cut off the only 
jossible chance of escapes. In declining this 
he is simply abandoning himself with his eyes 
pen to that’ other and terrible ener ey which 
‘ts already there, and which, in the natural 
course of things, is bearing him every moment 
further and further from escape. 


fore, it is plain that the only thing necessary 
to make it of no effect is neglect. Hence the 
" Bible could not fail to lay strong emphasis on 
‘a word so vital.. It was not necessary for it 
to say, how shall we escape if we trample 
ipon the great salvation, or doubt, or despise, 
or reject it. A man who has been poisoned 
ly need neglect the antidote and he will die. 
akes no difference whether he dashes it 
e ground, or pours it out of the window, 


a 


From the very nature of Salvation, there- . 


£ 





























420 


or sets it down by his bedside, 
all the time he is dying. He wi 
same, whether he destroys it in a p: 
coolly refuses to have anything to do © 
And as a matter of fact probably most de 
spiritually, are gradual dissolutions 
last class rather than rash suicides of the : 
This, then, is the effect of neglecting salva-— 
tion from the side of salvation itself; and t 
conclusion is that from the very natitre Obi 
salvation escape is out of the question. Saly 
tion is a definite process. If a man refuse 
submit himself to that process, clearly he éa 
_ not have the benefits of it, As many as re- 7 
‘ ceived Him to them gave He power to become 
" the sons of God. We does not avail himself o 
[ this power. It may be mere carelessness or 
. apathy.’ Nevertheless the neglect is fata 
py He cannot escape because he will not. 
. ‘Turn now to another aspect of the casé—to 
‘ the effect upon the soul itself. Neglect does 
; more for the soul than make it miss salvation. 
? It despoils it of its capacity for salvation 
Degeneration in the spiritual sphere involves 
primarily the impairing of the faculties of © 
salvation and ultimately the loss of them. Tt © 
really means that the very soul itself becomes — 
piecemeal destroyed until the very ats for 
God and righteousness is gone. 
; The soul, in its highest sense, is a vas 
capacity for God. It is like a curious chamber © 
as added on to being, and somehow inyolying | 
being, a chamber with elastic and contrac 
walls, which can be expanded, with God as i 

















Nehiodd, illimitably, but which without God 
Shrinks and shrivels until every vestige of the 
Divine is gone, and God’s image is left. with- 
out God’s Spirit. One cannot call what is left 
a soul; it is a shrunken, useless organ, a 
-eapacity sentenced to death by disuse, which 
droops as a withered hand by the side, and 
cumbers nature like a rotted branch. Nature 
“has her revenge upon neglect as well as upon 
extravagance. Misuse, with her, is as mortal 
a sin as abuse. 
_ There are certain burrowing animals—the 
mole for instance—which have taken to spend- 
ing their lives beneath the surface of the ground. 
And Nature has taken her revenge upon them 
" in athoroughly natural way—she l has closed up 
their eyes. If they mean to live in darkness, | 
she argues, eyes are obviously a superfluous 
function. By neglecting them these animals 
made it clear they do not want them. And 
_as one of Nature’s fixed principles is that noth- 
ing shall exist in vain, the eyes are presently 
taken away, or reduced to a rudimentary 
_ state. There are fishes also which have had 
i to pay the same terrible forfeit for having 
‘made their abode in dark caverns where eyes 
_@an never be required. And in exactly the 
- same way the spiritual eye must die and lose 
its power by purely natural law if the soul 
~ choose to walk in darkness rather than in ligh». 
'. This is the meaning ofthe favorite paradox 
- of Christ, “From him that hath not shall be 
taken away even that which he hath;” “take 
therefore the talent from him.” The religious 

















p2e JEBGENERAT 


faculty isa talent, the most sp 
talent we possess. Yet it issub eh 
ural conditions and laws. If, an 
his talent and hide it in a napkin, al 1 
is doing him neither harm nor good apparent 
God will not allow him to have it. aoe 4 
it is lying there rolled up in the darkness, % 
conspicuously affecting any one, still God will : 
not allow him tokeep it. Ile will not allow him — 
to kecp it any more than Nature would sacl: 
the fish to keep their eyes. Therefore, Hu say, 
“take the talent from him,” And Nature does i 
This man’s crime was simply neglect—“thou ~ 
wicked and slot/ful servant.” Tt was a wasted ~ 
ife—a life which failed in the holy stewards ~ 
snip of itself. Such a life is a peril to all who” 
cross its path. Degeneration Compasses” 
generation. It is ouly a character whieh is 
itself de veloping that can aid the Evolution of | 
the world and so fulfil the end of life. For 
this high usury each of our lives, however small - 
may seem our capital, was given us by God) 
And it is just the men whose capital seems 
small who need to choose the best investments. 
It is s‘gnificant that it was the man who had ~ 
only one talent who was guilty of neglecting 
it. Men with ten talents, men of large gifts — 
and burning energies, either direct their powers ~ 
nobly and usefully, or misdirect them irretriev= ~ 
ably. - It is those who belong to the rank and ~ E 
file of life who need this warning most. Oth 
have an abundant store and sow to the spirit or 
the flesh with a-lavishhand. But we, with our” 
small gift, what boots our Mab is Our hos 











on as ay oFaiiary men is to neglect to sow at 
‘The interest on our talent would beso small 
we excuse ourselyes with the reflection 
that it is not worth while. 
_ It is no objection to all this to say that we 
are «nconscious of this neglect or misdirection 
of our powers. That is the darkest feature in 
the case. If there were uneasiness there might 
be hope. If there were, somewhere about our 
- soul, a something which was not gone to sleep 
t like all the rests if there were a contending 
- force anywhere s if we would let even’ that 
work instead of neglecting it, it would gain 
i strength from hour to hour, and waken up one 
at a time each torpid and dishonored faculty 
- till our whole nature becomes alive with striv- 
: ings -against self, and every avenue was open 
“wide for God. Butthe apathy, the numbness 
? of the soul, what can be said of such asymptom 
but that it means the creeping on of death? 
_ There are accidents in which the victims feel 
mo pain. They are well and strong they think. 
«But they are dying. And if you “ask the sur- 
_ geon by their side what makes him give this 
Verdict, he will say it is this numbness over 
the frame which tells how some of the parts 
; p have lost already the very capacity for life. — 
Nor is it the least tragic accompaniment of 
* this process that its effect may even be concealed 
from others. The soul undergoing Degenera- 
~ tion, surely by some arr ngement “with Temp- 
tation planned in the uftermost hell, possesses 
the power of absolute secrecy. When all with- 
}is festering decay and rottenness, a Judas, 

























" 


ate >s) 

















without Nel may igs 
invisible consumption, like its fell 
_in the natural world, may even keep its vic 
beautiful while slowly slaying it. 
examines the little Crustacea which have in 
habited for centuries the lakes of the Mainiwoeh 
Cave of Kentucky, one is at first astonished 
find these animals apparently endowed wi 
perfect eyes. The pallor of the head is bro 
by two black pigment specks, conspicuo 
indeed as the only bits of color on the whol 
blanched body; and these, even to the casual 
observer, certainly represent well-defined or- 
gans of vision. But what do they with ey 
in theze Stygian waters? There reigns an 
eyerlastine night. Is the law for once at fault? 
A swift incision with the scalpel, a glance with 
a lens, and their secret is betrayed. The eyes ~ 
are a mockery. Externally they are organs of ‘ 
vision—the front of the eye is perfect ; behind, eet r 
ther. is nothing but a mass oi ruins. The optic 
nerye is a shruuken, atrophied and imsensate ~ 
thread. These animals have organs of vision, 
and yet they have no vision. They haveeyes, 
but they see not. ‘ 
Exactly what Christ said of men: They had 
eyes, but no vision. And the reason is the — 
same. It is the simplest problem of natural 
history. The Crustacea of the Mammoth Caye  — 
have chosen to abide in darkness. Therefore 
they have become fitted for it. By refusing to 
see they have waived the right to see. ae Fg 
Nature has grimly humored them. Nature had : 
to do it by her very constitution. Itisherde 











the 


(3 ce against waste that tenes of dontee Sipuet 
' immediately follow disuse of function. He that 
ith ears to hear, he whose ears have not de- 
nerated, let him hear. 
- ‘Men tell us sometimes there is no such thing 
‘asanatheist. There must be. Thereare some 
men to whom it is true that there is no God. 
‘They cannot see God because they have no eye. 
They have only an abortive organ, atroph.ed 
“by neglect. 
All this, it is commonplace again to insist, is 
Y not the effect of neglect when we die, but while 
‘ we live. The process is in full career and 
“operation now. It is useless projecting con- 
- sequences into the future when the effects may 
be measured now. We are always practising 
_ these little deceptions upon ourselves, post- 
poning the consequences of our misdeeds 
‘ as if they were to culminate some other 
day about the time of death. It makes 
 ussin with a lighter hand to run an account 
Pega retribution, as it were, and delay the. 
reckoning time with God. But every day isa 
y reckoning day. Every soul is a Book of Judg- 
~ ment, and Nature, as a recording angel, marks 
their every sin. As all will be judged by the 
_ great Judge some day, all are judged by Nature 
“now. The sin of yesterday, as part of its 
_ penalty, has the sin of to-day. All follow us 
in silent retribution on our past, and go with 
us to the grave. We cannot chdat Nature. 
‘ No sleight-of-heart can rob religion of a | 
esent, ‘the immortal nature of a now. The 

















































taking the natural and rational 


on us when we die; they are 1 
now. ‘To-day brings the resu 
past, to-morrow of to-day. A 
of sin, to the exact strengtl 
developed them, nearing their ul 
tion with every breath we draw, areh 
in us, now. The souls of son: y 
ready honeycombed through and | th 
the eternal consequences of n 

















ease just vow, it is simply ineo 
there is any eseape just 7row. W 
thing it is to fall into the heuer 
God! <A fearful thing even if, 
pher tells us, “ the hands of the Li 
the Laws of Nature.” 
Whatever hopes of a “ eae ” al 
soul may have, can be shown to bean 
and delusive dream. Howis the soul to. 
to heaven if it has neglected for a 
means of escape from the ay e 
And where is the capaeity for heay nh to a 
from if it be not developed onea Ww 
indeed, is even the smallest spiritual a 
tion of God and heaven to ou from: when So 























fannifexted herd? 2” if every Gudwe 
tion of the soul has heen allowed 


heaven to bé choked, and every te 






love aay trast to have ees persist- 
stands and ignored, where are the 
faculties to come from that would even find 
the faintest Sash in such things as God and 
Levin gives ? 

These three words, Salvation, Escape, and 
Neglect, then, are not casually, but or ganically 
and necessarily connected. Their doctrine is 
scientific, not arbitrary. Escape means noth- 
g more than the gradual emergence of the 
4 higher being from the lower, and nothing less. 
Iti Mmeaus the gradual putting off of all that can- 
hot enter the higher state, or heaven, and 
‘simultaneously the putting on of Christ. Tt 
involves the slow completing of the seul and 
_the development of the capacity for God. 
Should any one object that from this scien- 
- tific Standpoint the opposite of sabvation is 
~ annihilation, the answer is at hand. Fyrom this 
standpoint there is no such word. 

_ If, then, escape is to be open to us, it is not 
to come to us somehow, vaguely. We are not 
to hope for anything ‘startling or mysterious. 
Tt isa definite opening along certain lines which 
_ are definitely marked by God, which begin at 
the Cross of Christ, and lead direct to Him. 
' Each man in the silence‘of his own soul must 
_ work out this salvation for himself with fear 
and trembling—with fear, realizing the mo- 
-mentous issues of his task ; with trembling, 
pot before the tardy work be done the voice 
of Death should summon him to stop. 

What these lines are may, in closing, be in- 
pret? ina word. The true problem of the 


eee 













bs ee ‘gis 







































# 





Ss, ne on ce pe Pee 








a2 












see nothing, But develop it and you sea 





of Mesioet, Whatever this is, ito tone ull 
escape. It will just mean that you are so to 
cultivate the soul that all its powers will open 
out to God, and in bebolding God be drawn away 
from sin. The idea veally i is to develop amot 
the ruins of the old a new “ creature” —a n 
creature which, while the old is suffering De 
generation from Neglect, is gradually to unfold 
to escape away and develop on spiritual lines ty — 
spiritual beauty and strength. And as our © 
conception of spiritual being must be taken — # 
simply from natural being, our ideas of the lives — 
along which the new religious nature is.o run © 
must be borrowed from the known lines of the 
old. 

There is, for example, a Sense of Sight in the { 
religious nature. Neglect this, leave it un- 
developed, and you never missit. You simply — 
















God. And the line along which to develop it — ‘ 
is known to us. Become pure in heart. The ‘ 
pure in heart shallseeGod. Here, then, isone ~ 
opening for soul-culture—the avenue through ; 
purity of heart to the spiritual seeing of God. 
Then there is a Sense of Sound. Neglect 
this, leave it undeveloped, and you never miss ~ 
it. You simply hear nothing. Developit, and — 
you hear God. And the line along which to 
develop it is known tous. Obey Christ. Be E 
come one of Christ’s flock. “The sheep hear — 
His voice, and He calleth them by name.” — 
Here, then, is another opportunity for the cult- — 
ure of the soul—a gateway through the Shep 
herd’s fold to hear the Shepherd’s voice. 




































And there is a Sense of Touch to be ac- 
uired—such a sense as the woman had who 
ouched the hem ‘of Christ’s garment, that 
onderful electric touch called faith, which 
oves the very heart of God. 
And there is Sense of Taste—a spiritual 
unger after God ; a something within which 
_ tastes and sees that He is good. And there 
is the Talent for Inspiration. Neglect that, 
and all the scenery of the spiritual world is 
flat and frozen. But cultivate it, and it pene- 
ates the whole soul with sacred fire, and illu-. 
inates creation with God.. And last of all 
there is the great capacity for Love, even for 
helove of God—the expanding capacity for 
eling more and more its height and depth, iis 
length and breadth. Tull that is felt no man 
can really understand that word, “ so great 
salvation,” for what is its measure but that 
other « 59” of Christ—God so loved the world 
_ that He gave His only begotten Son? Verily, 
ow shall we escape if we neglect that ?? 





_ 1¥or thescientific basis of this spiritual law the follow- 
g works may be consulted :— 

it. The Origin of Species.”” By Charles Darwin, F.R.S. 
uondon : John Murray. 1872. - 

_ “Degeneration.”? By E. Ray Lankester, F.R.S. 
London : Macmillan. 1880. 

_ “Der Ursprung der veeveuters und das Princip des 
Functions-Wechsels.”?’ Dr. A. Dorhn. Leipzig : 1875. 
_ ‘* Lessons from Nature.” By St. George Mivart, 
iS. London: John Murray. 1876. 

“The Natural Conditions of Existence a they Affect 
mal Life.” Karl Semper. London : (, Kegan Paul 








“Ts not the evidence of 
all the greatest works in e 
plainly to us, not ‘there has 
_ but ‘there has been ~ great pr 
the weariness of mortality but 


AG ' tty, which we have to recogniz 
and that is just what we now 


. think that we are to do great 
bars and perspiration ; alas! we 
way, but lose some pounds of our 


7 





er Ye 

















GROWTH. 


“Consider the lilies of the field how they grow.’’— 
_ The Sermon on the Mount. 

“Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.”— 
_ Juvenal. 2 

_ Wuar gives the peculiar point to this object- 
) lesson from the lips of Jesus is, that He not 
» only made the iliustration, but made the lilies. 
It is like an inventor describing his own ma- 
chine. He made the lilies and He made me— 
_ both on the same broad principle. Both ‘o- 
» gether, man and flower, He planted deep in 
_ the Providence of God; but as men are dull at 
_ studying themselves He points to this com- 
_ panion-phenomenon to teach us how to livea 
free and natural life, a life which God will un- 
fold for us, without our anxiety, as He unfolds 
the flower. For Christ’s words are not a 
' general appeal to consider nature. Men are 
' not to consider the lilies simply to admire 
their beauty, to dream over the delicate 
' strength and grace of stem and leaf. The 
| point they were to consider was how they grew 
-—how without anxiety or care the flower woke 
into loveliness, how without weaving these 
leaves were woven, how without toiling these 
complex tissues spun themselves, and how 


135 





GROWTH. 



























134 


without any effort or friction the 6 wholes 
eame ready-made from ons loom of G 
more than Solomon-like glory.-_ “So,” He sa: 
making the application beyond dispute, “ yo 
care-worn, anxious men must grow. You, too, 
need take no thought for your. life, what ye 
shall eat or what ye shall drink or what ye 
shall put on. For if God so clothe the grass of — 
the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is © 
east into the oven, shall He not much. more 
clothe you, O ye of little faith?” at: 
This nature-lesson was a great novelty. in’ 4 
its day; but all men now who have evena ~ 
“little faith ” have learned this Christian secret ~ 
of a composed life. Apart even from the ~ 
parable of the lily, the failures of the past ~ 
have taught most of us the folly of disquieting 
ourselves in vain, and we have given up the © 
idea that by taking thought we can add a cubit — 
to our stature. cif 
But no sooner has our life settled down to a 
this calm trust in God than a new and grayer | 
anxiety begins. This time it is not for the © 
body we are in travail, but for the soul. For — 
the temporal life we have considered the lilies, 
but how is the spiritual life to grow? How © 
are we to become better men? How are we to © 
grow in grace? By what thought shall we © 
add the cubits to the spiritual stature and ~ 
reach the fulness of the Perfect Man? And | 
because we know ill how to do this, the old © 
anxiety comes back again and our inner life is ~ 
once more an agony ‘of. conflict. and remorse. — 
After all, we have but transferred our anxiou 































oughts from. ita ay. to the soul. Our 

forts after Christian growth seem only a 
succession of failures, and instead of rising 
into the beauty of holiness our life is a daily, 
heartbreak and humiliation. 

_ Now the reason of this is very plain. We 
have forgotten the parable of the lily. Violent 
_ efforts to grow are right in earnestness, but. 
wholly wrong in principle. There is but one 
principle of growth both for the natural and 
_ spiritual, for animal and plant, for body and 
‘soul. For all growth is an organicthing. And 
_ the principle of growing in grace is once more 
this, “‘Consider the lilies how they grow, 

a In seeking to extend the analogy from the 
_ body to the soul there are two things about 
_ the lilies’ growth, two characteristics of all 
- growth, on which one must fix attention. 

. These are,— 

_ First, Spontaneousness. 

Second, Mysteriousness. 

q I. Spontaneousness. There are three lines 
' along which one may seek for evidence of the 
A spontaneousness of growth. The first is Sci- 
- ence. And the argument here could not be 
summed up better than in the words of Jesus. 

' The lilies grow, He says, of themselves; they 
_ toil not, neither do they spin. . They grow, that 
is, automatically, spontaneously, without try- 
ing, without fretting, without thinking. Ap- 
plied in any direction, to plant, to animal, to 
the body or to the soul this law holds. A boy 
grows, for example, without trying. One or 
two simple conditions are fulfilled, and the 





136 GROWTH. 































growth goes on. He thinks probably as a 
about the condition as about the resuli 
fulfils the conditions by habit, the result. 
lows by nature. Both processes go steadil 
on from year to year apart from himself an 
all but in spite of himself. One would never 
think of telling a boy to grow. A doctor has 
no prescription for growth. Hecan tellmehow 
growth may be stunted or impaired, but the 
process itself is recognized as beyond control ~ 
—one of the few, and therefore very significant, — 
things which Nature keeps in her own hands. b 
No physician of souls, in like manner, has any 
prescription for spiritual growth. It is the 
question he is most often asked and most often — 
answers wrongly. He may prescribe more 
earnestness, more prayer, more self-denial, or 
more Christian work. These are prescriptions ~ 
for something, but not for growth. Not that 
they may not encourage growth; but the soul — 
grows as the lily grows, without ‘trying, with- — 
out fretting, without ever thinking. Manuals 
of devotion, with complicated rules for get- ~ 
ting on in the Christian life, would do well 

sometimes to return to the simplicity of nat-— 
ure; and earnest souls who are attempting 
sanctification by struggle instead of sanctifica-— 
tion by faith might be. spared much humilia- 
tion by learning “the botany of the Sermon on — 
the Mount. There can indeed be no other 
principle of growth. than this. It is a vital 
act. And to try to make a thing grow is as” 
absurd as to help the tide to come in or the 

sun rise. E 




























e 


_ Another argument for the spontaneousness of 
rowth is wniversal experience. A boy not 
nly grows without trying, but he cannot 
grow if he tries. No man by taking thought 
has ever added a cubit to his stature; nor has 
' any man by mere working at his soul ever 
- approached nearer to the stature of the Lord 
_ Jesus. The stature of the Lord Jesus was not 
itself reached by work, and he who thinks to 
- approach its mystical height by anxious effort is 
| really receding from it. Christ’s life unfolded 
- itself from a divine germ, planted centrally in 
Hig nature, which grew as naturally as # 
flower froma bud. This flower may be imi- 
_ tated; but one can always tell an artificial 
- flower. The human form may be copied in 
_ wax, yet somehow one.never fails to detect the —. 
_ difference. And this precisely is the difference 
_ between a native growth of Christian principle 
- and the moral copy of it. The one is natural, 
_ the other mechanical. The one is a growth, 
_ the other anaccretion. Now this, according to 
_ modern biology, is the fundamental distinction 
_ between the living and the not living, betweem 
- an organism and a crystal. The living organ- 
‘ism grows, the dead crystal increases. The 
first grows vitally from within, the last adds 
new particles from the outside. The whole 
difference between the Christian and the moral- 
ist lies here. The Christian works from the 
entre, the moralist from the circumference. 
The one is an organism, in the centre of which 
is planted by the living God a living germ. 
~The other is a erystal, very beantiful it may 




















Tei Se TR 


‘ ciple of growth. Nae 


‘not demand morality, but that it demands 


life. Perfect life is not merely the possession © 





‘138 


‘be; but only a erystal—it wants 























And one sees here also, what. is ‘sot 
very difficult to see, why salvation in the 
instance is never connected directly with 
rality. The reason is not that salvation 


much of it that the moralist can never r 
up to it. The end of Salvation is per 
the Christlike mind, character and 
Morality is on the way to this perfection ; 
may go a considerable distance towards. it, but 
it can never reach it. Only Life can do that. 
It requires something with enormous power of 
movement, of erowth, of overcoming obstacles, 
to attain the perfect. Therefore the man who 
has within himself this great. formative agent, 
Life, is nearer the end than the man who has ~ 
morality alone. The latter ean never reach | 
perfection; the former must. For the Life © 
must develop out according to its type; and 7 
being a germ of the Christ-life, it must unfold 
into a Christ. Morality, at the utmost, only © 
develops the character in one or two “direc. 
tions. It may perfect a single virtue here and ~ 
there, but it cannot perfect all. And espe- ' 
cially it fails always to give that rounded har- — 
mony of parts, that perfect tune to the whole ~ 
orchestra, which is the mark characteristic of — 


ef perfect functions, but of perfect functions ~ 
perfectly adjusted to each other and all con- — 
epiring to a single result, the perfect working © 
ai the whole organism. It is not said that the — 





arate will Geran in all its fulness in 

this life. That were a time too short for an 

Evolution so magnificent. In this world only 

_ the cornless ear is seen; sometimes only the 

small yet still prophetic blade. The sneer at 

the godly man for his imperfections is ill- 

judged. <A blade is a small thing. At first it 

_ grows very near the earth. It is often soiled 

and crushed and downtrodden. But it is a 

living thing. That great dead stone beside it 

_ is more imposing; only it will never be any-— 
thing else than a stone. But this small blade 

it doth not yet appear what it shail be. 

E Seeing now that Growth can only be synony- 
“mous with a living automatic process, it is all 
_but superfluous to seek a third line ‘of argu- 

a ment from Scripture. Growth there is always 

' described in the language of physiology. The 


regenerate soul is a new creature. The Chris- 
tian is anew man in Christ Jesus. He adds 


-e 


' the cubits to his stature just as the old man 
- does. - He is rooted and built up in Christ; he 
E abides in the vine, and so abiding, not toiling 
OF spinning, brings_forth fruit. The Chris- 
_ tian in short, like the poet, is born not made; 
and the fruits of his character are not manu- 
_ factured things but living things, things which 
have grown from the secret gerin, the fruits of 
the living Spirit. They are not the produce of 
this climate, but exotics from a sunnier land. 

_ (I. But, secondly, besides the Spontaneous- 
“ness there is this other great characteristic of 
rowth—Mysteriousness. Upon this quality 
depends the fact, probably, that so few. men 

























140 GROWTI. © 

























ever fathom its real charaolen 
unspiritual always in-dealing with the simplest 
spiritual things. A lily grows mysteriously, 
pushing up its solid weight of stem and leaf in 
the teeth of gravity. Shaped into beauty by 
secret and invisible fingers, the flower develops 
we know not how. But we do not wonder at 
it. Every day the thing is done; itis Nature, — 
itis God. We are spiritual enough at least. 
to understand that. But when the soul rises — 
slowly above the world, pushing up its delicate 
virtues in the teeth of sin, shaping itself 
mysteriously into the image of Christ, wedeny — 
that the power is not of man. A strong will, | 
we say, a high ideal, the. reward of Virtue, — 
Christian influence these will account for — 
it. Spiritual character is merely the product — 
of anxious work, self-command, and self- 4 
denial. We allow, that is to say, a miracle to © 
the lily, but none to the man. The lily may . 
2Yow ; the man must fret and toil and spin. 
Now grant for a moment that by hard work 
and self-restraint a man may attain to a very © 
high character. Itis not denied thatthis can be © 
done. But what is denied is that thisis growth, — 
and that this process is Christianity. “The fact 
that you can account for it proves that it is not 
growth. For growth is mysterious ; the pecu- 
fiarity of it is that you cannot account for it. 
Mysteriousness, as Mozley has well observed, 
is “tbe test of spiritual birth.” And this was 
Christ’s test. “The wind bloweth where 1 
listeth. Thou hearest the sound thereof, bu 
- canst not tell whence it cometh ee whither i 





























x _ GRO WTH. 


> 80 ts every one that is burn of the Spirit” 
fi e test of spirituality is that you cannot tell 
J Pekeane it cometh or whither it goeth. If you 
can tell, if you can account for it on philosophi- 
eal principles, on the doctrine of influence, on 
“strength of will, ona favorable environment, it 
‘is not growth. It may be so far a success, it 
_ may be a perfectly honest, even remarkable, 
and praiseworthy imitation, but it is not the 
. real thing. The fruits are wax, the flowers 
- artificial—you can tell whence it cometh and 
_ whither it goeth. 
The conclusion is, then, that the Christian 
isa unique phenomenon. You cannot account 
for him. And if you could he would not be a 
- Christian. Mozley has drawn the two char- 
' acters for us in graphic words: “Take an 
_ ordinary man of the world—what he thinks 
~ and what he does, his whole standard of dute 
>is taken from the society in which he lives. 
itis a borrowed standard: he is as good as 
other people are; he does, in the way of duty, 
what is generally considered proper and be- 
_ coming among those with whom his lot is 
, thrown. He reflects established opinion on 
- such points. He follows its lead. His aims 
and objects in life again are taken from the 
_ world around him, and from its dictation. 
_ What it considers honorable, worth having, 
- advantageous =nd good, he thinks so too and 
Bie aa “it. His motives all come from a vis- 
ble quarter. It would be absurd to say that 
th nere is any mystery in such a character as 
this, because it is formed from a known external 







14205 GROWTH. 


influence—the influence of social opi id 
the voice of the world. * Whence such a oE r- 
acter cometh’ we see; we venture to say that 
the source and origin of it is open and ~ 
palpable, and we know it just as we know the a 
physical causes of many common facts.” 
Then there is the other. “ 'Thereis a carinii AY 
character and disposition of mind of whieh it — 
is true to say that ‘thou canst not tell whence 
it cometh or whither it goeth? . . . There 
are those who stand out from among the crowd, _ 
which reflects merely the atmosphere of feel. 
ing and standard of society around it, with an 
impress upon them which bespeaks a heavenly — 
birth. . . . Now, when we See one of those . 
eliaracters, it is a question which we ask our- 
selves, How has the person become possessed 
of it? Tas he caught it from society around ~ 
him? That cannot be, because if is wholly — 
different from that of the world around him. 
Has he caught it from the inoculation of crowds 
and masses, as the mere religious zealot catehes - 
his character? That cannot be either, for the 
type is altogether different from that which — 
masses of men, under enthusiastic impulses, 
exhibit. There is nothing gregarious in this 
character; it is the individual’s own; it is not- 
borrowed, it is not a reflection of any fashion 
or tone of the world outside; it rises up from 
some fount within, and it is a ereation of which 
the text says, We know not whence it cometh.””? — 
Now we have all met these two character — 











1 University Sermons, pp. 284-241, ' 





- uous, a trifle Bld perbais: and aanraliee ‘when 
; ire tically examined, revealing somehow the 
mark of the tool; the other with God’s breath 
: me ‘upon it, an inspiration ; ; not more virtuous, 
but. differ ently virtuous; not more humble, 
but different, wearing the meek and quiet 
‘spirit artlessly as tothe manner born. The 
-other-worldliness of such a character is. the 
thing that strikes you; you are not prepared 
for what it will door say or become next, for 
it moves from a far-off centre, and in spite of 
‘its transparency and sweetness, that presence - 
fills you always with awe. A man never feels 
_ the discord of his own life, never hears the jar of 
_ the machinery by which he tries to manufact- 
- ure his own good points, till he has stood in 
_- the stillness of such a presence. Then he dis- 
e serns the difference between growth and work. 
He has considered the lilies, how they grow. 
- We have now seen that spiritual growth is a 
process maintained and secured by a sponta- 
‘heous and mysterious inward principle. Itisa 
‘spontaneous. principle even in its origin, for 
it bloweth where it listeth; mysterious in its 
operation, for we can never tell whence it 
cometh ; obscure in its destination, for we can- 
‘not tell whence it goeth. The whole process. 
therefore transcends us; we do not work, we 
are taken in hand—it is God which worketiz 
in us, both to will and to do of His good pleas- 
ure.” We do not plan—we are “ “created in 
Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath 
re ordained that we should walk in them.” 











































There may be an obvious obtestou to all : 
this. It takes away all conflict from the Chris. — 
tian life? It makes man, does it not, mere clay — 
in the hands of the potter? It crushes the old 
character to make a new one, and eae fe i 
man’s responsibility for his own soul? aR 

Now we are not concerned here in once more ~ 
striking the time-honored “balance between — 
faith and works.” We are considering how 
lilies grow, and in a specific connection, 
namely, to discover the attitude of mind which 
the Christian should preserve regarding hig — 
spiritual growth. That attitude, primarily, is 
to be free from care. We are not lodging a — 
plea for inactivity of the spiritual energies, but — 
for the tranquillity of the spiritual mind, — 
Christ’s protest is not against work, but — 
against anxious thought; and rather, there. 
fore, than complement the lesson by showing 
the other side, we take the risk of still further 
extending the plea in the original direction. 

What is the relation, to recur again to anal- ~ 
ogy, between growth and work in a boy? Con. — 
sciously, there is no relation at all. The boy 
never thinks of connecting his work with his 
growth. Work in fact is one thing and growth 
another, and it is so in the spiritual life. Ifit— 
be asked therefore, Is the Christian wrong in ~ 
these ceaseless and agonizing efforts after 
growth? the answer is, Yes, he is quite wrong, © 
or at least, he is quite mistaken. Whena boy 
takes a meal or denies himself indigestible 
things, he does not say, “ All this will minister 
to_my growth”; or when he runs a race he 















APT eT AS ere tg a 


































GROWTH. vi tig 145 


does not say, “ This will help the next cubit of 
my stature.” It may or it may not be true that 
these things will help his stature, but, if he 
_ thinks of this, his idea of growth is morbid. 
And this is the point we are dealing with. His 
anxiety here is. altogether irrelevant and super- 
fluous. Nature is far more bountiful than we 
_ think. When she gives us energy she asks 
none of it back to expend on our own growth. 
She will attend to that. “Give your work,” 
she says, “and your anxiety to others; trust 
me to add the cubits to yourstature.” If God 
is adding to our spiritual stature, unfolding 
the new nature within us, it is a mistake to 
keep twitching at the petals with our coarse 
fingers. We must seek to let the Creative 
Hand alone. “It is God which giveth the in- 
crease.” Yet we never know how little we 
have learned of the fundamental principle of 
Christianity till we discover how much we are 
all bent on supplementing God’s free grace._ 
Tf God is spending work upon a Christian, let 
him be still and know that it is God. And if 
he wants work, he will find it there—in the 
being still. 

Not that there is no work for him who would 
grow, todo. There is work, and severe work, 
—work so great that the worker deserves to 
have himself relieved of all that is superfluous 
during his task. If the amount of energy lost 
in trying to grow were spent in fulfilling rather 
the conditions of growth, we should have many 
more cubits to show for our stature. It is with 
_ these conditions that the personal work of the 

‘ 10 


by eS Be 








i Eas ee 





£ 
wy 
; 
a 
f 
r 


- factures the heat, light, air, and moisture, than — 









146 GROWTH. 

Christian is chiefly Conca AG 
moment what they are, and their exact. 
For its growth the plant needs heat, light, < 
and moisture. A man, therefore, must go 
search of these, or their spiritual) equivalents, 


and this is his work? By no means. The 
Christian’s work is not yet. Does the plant — fe 


_ go in search of its conditions? Nay, the con-— 


ditions come to the plant. It no more manu- eek 







it manufactures its own stem. It finds them 
all around it in Nature. It simply stands still” 
with its leaves spread out im unconscious 
prayer, and Nature lavishes upon it these and 
all other bounties, bathing it in sunshine, pour- 
ing the nourishing air over and over it, reviving ‘ 
it graciously w ith its nightly dew. Grace, too, 
is as free as the air. The Lord God is a Sun. — 
He is as the Dew to Israel. A man has no | 
more to manufacture these than he has fa 
manufacture his own soul. He stands sur-~ 
rounded by them, bathed in them, beset behind 
and before by them. He lives and moves and 
has his being in them. How then shall he 
in search of them? Do not they rather ada 
search of him? Does he not feel how they 
press themselves upon him? Does he not 
know how unweariedly they appeal to him? 
Has he not heard how they are sorrowful when — 
he will not have them? Tis work, therefore, — 
is not yet. The voice still says, « Be still.” 
The conditions of growth then, and the in- 
ward principle of erowth being both sup- — 
plied by Nature, the thing man has to at the — 








Siete se eS ee 
























grown. 


i little junction left for him to complete, is to 
_ apply the one to the other. He matiufactures 
nothing ; he earns nothing ; he need be anxious 
for nothing; his one duty is éo be in these con- 
ditions, to abide in them, to allow grace to 
play over him, to be still therein and know 
that this is God. ; ! 
: ~The conflict begins and prevails in allits life- 
long agony the moment a man forgets this. 
gling to get back again into position. He 
-. makes the church into a workshop when God 
- meant it to bea beautiful garden. And even 
in his closet, where only should reign silence— 
a silence as of the mountains whereon the 
lilies grow—is heard the roar and tumult of 
' machinery. True, aman will often have to 
wrestle with his God—but not for growth. The 
© Christian life is a composed life. The Gospel 
_ is Peace. Yet the most anxious people in the 


_ ‘He struggles to grow himself instead of strug- ~ 


' world are Christians—Christians who misun- ~ 













- derstand the nature of growth. Life is a per- 
petual self-condemning because they are not 
growing. And the effect is not only the loss 
of tranquillity to the individual. The energies 
“which are meant to be spent on the work of 


~ So long as the Church’s activities are spent on 

_ growing there is nothing to spare for the world. 
A soldier’s time is not spent in earning the 
money to buy his armor, in finding food and 
raiment, inseeking shelter. His king provides 
these things that he may be the more at 
Biberty to fight his battles. So, for the soldier 


Christ are consumed in the soul’s own fever. 


~~ 





148 . GROWTH. 






of the Cross all is provided. His Government 
has planned to leave him free for the King- 
dom’s work. 

The problem of the Christian life finally is 
simplified to this—man has but to preserve 
‘the right attitude. To abide in Christ, to be 


_ ~ in position, that is all. Much work is done on 
' _ board a ship crossing the Atlantic. Yet none 


of itis spent on making the ship go. The ~~ 
‘sailor but harnesses his vessel to the wind. 
He puts his sail and rudder in position, and lo, 
the miracle is wrought. So everywhere God 
creates, man utilizes. All-the work of the 
world is merely a taking advantage of energies . __ 
already there.t God gives the wind and the 

water, and the heat; man but puts himself in 

the way of the wind, fixes his water-wheel in 

the way of the river, puts his piston in the 

way of the steam; and so holding himself in 

position before God’s Spirit, all the energies of 
Omnipotence course within his soul. He is 

like a tree planted by a river whose leaf is 

green and whose fruits fail not. Such is the 

deeper lesson to be learned from considermg 

the lily. It is the voice of Nature echoing the 

whole evangel of Jesus, “Come unto Me, andI ~ 
will give you rest.” 


1See Bushnell’s ‘‘ New Life.”’ 


















“ Whct could be easier than to 
_ most }\ los .phical defenders of 
havc >xhaucted language in 4 
of the n-ssisted intellect? Co 
plici:: -- enounced the incapac’ty c 








L told till we are PUREE aR deo 
coute Atheists or Agnostics. We 
word ; we become Agnostics.” 











_ DEATH. 


“ To be carnally minded is Death.’’-—-Paut. 
_ @**I do not wonder at what men suffer, but I wonder 
often at what they lose.”—-Ruskin. 


|. “Dears,” wrote Faber, “is an unsurveyed. 


oe land, an unarranged Science.” Poetry draws 
__ near Death only to hover over it for a moment 
and withdraw in terror. History knows it 
simply as a universal fact. Philosophy finds 
it among the mysteries of being, the one great 
ay mystery of being not. All contributions to 
this dread theme are marked by an essential 
_ . vagueness, and every avenue of approach 
' ~ seems darkened by impenetrable shadow. ch 
Ba But modern Biology has found it part of its — 
- work to push its way into this silent land, 
' and at last the world is confronted with a 
 ~ scientific treatment of Death. Not that much 
- is added to the old conception, or much taken 
from it. What it is, this certain Death with 
its uncertain issues, we know as little as before, 
But we can define more clearly and attach a 
_ narrower meaning to the momentous symbol. 
a: The interest of the investigation here lies in 
the fact that Death is one of the outstanding 
things in Nature which has an acknowledged 
ae tal equivalent. The prominence of the ~ 
151 


















ere 


be exaggerated. Next to Life the most 


_ Struct a doctrine which, intelligently enforced, _ 


152 : DEATH. 
































nant symbol in religion is its antithesis, Death. 
And from the time that “If thou eatest thereof 
thou shalt surely die” was heard in Paradise, 
this solemn word has been linked with human 
interests of eternal moment. Data 8 8: 
Notwithstanding the unparalleled emphasis — 
upon this term in the Christian system, there. 
is none more feebly expressive to the ordinary — 
mind. That mystery which surrounds the 
word in the natural world shrouds only too 
completely its spiritualimport. The reluctance 
which prevents men from investigating the 
secrets of the King of Terrors is for a certain — 
length entitled to respect. But it has left the- 
ology with only the vaguest materials to con- 


ought to appeal to all men with convincing: 
power and lend the most effective argument to. 
Christianity. Whatever may bave been its 
influence in the past, its threat is gone for the 
modern world. The word has grown weak. 
Ignorance has robbed the Grave of allits terror, 
and platitude despoilt Death of its sting. 
Death itself is ethically dead. Which of us, 
for example, enters fully into the meaning of 
words like these: “ She that liveth in pleasure 
is dead while she iveth”? Who allows ade- 
quate weight to the metaphor in the Pauline 
phrase, “To be carnally minded is Death ;” 
or in this, “The wages of sin is Death”? Or 
what theology has translated into the language 
of human life the terrific practical import of 































Lea iy Eeadiheses ‘agi sins”? To seek te 
_ make these phrases once more real and burn- 
ing; to clothe time-worn formule with living 
truth; to put the deepest ethical meaning into 
the gravest symbol of Nature, and fill up with 
its full consequence the darkest threat of Rev- 
elation—these are the objects before us now. 
What, then, is Death? Is it possible to 
define it and embody its essential meaning in 
an intelligible proposition ?° 
The most recent and the most scieniitie 
attempt to investigate Death we owe to the 
biological studies of Mr. Herbert Spencer. In 
his search for the meaning of Life ‘the word 
Death crosses his path, and he turns aside for 
a moment to define it. Of course what Death 
is depends upon what Life is. Mr. Herbert 
Spencer’s definition of Life, it is well known, 
has been subjected to serious criticism. While 
it has shed much light on many of the phe- — 
nomena of Life, it cannot be affirmed that it has 
taken its place i in science as the final solution 
of the fundamental problem of biology. Ne 
definition of Life, indeed, that has yet appeared 
can be said to be even approximately correct. 
Its mysterious juality evades us ; and we have 
-to be content with outward characteristics and 
accompaniments, leaving the thing itself an 
unsolved riddle. At the same time Mr, Her- 
_ bert Spencer’s masterly elucidation of the chief 
phenomena of Life has placed philosophy and 
science under many obligations, and in the 
_ paragraphs which follow we shall have te 
_ incur a further debt on behalf of religion. 








first set ourselves to grasp “the leading ¢ 1a 
teristics which distinguish living things 


natalie from the not-living by the per- 
formance of certain functions. These fun - 


‘functions represent the true manifestations f 
bring us more directly to the specific sub 


ing to his definition, Life is “The definite com- 
bination of heterogeneous changes, both simul- ee 


nal relations to external relations.”? An ex-— 



























The meaning of Death dopsenee 
been said, on the meaning of Life, 


a physiologist the living organism is” istin- hye 


tions are four in number—Assimilation, WwW 
Reproduction, and Growth. N othing ¢ 
be a more interesting task than to point 
the co-relatives of these in the spiritual sph 
to show in what ways the discharge of the 


spiritual life, and how the failure to perform: 
them constitutes spiritual Death. But it will 


before us if we follow, rather the newer bi 
logical lines of Mr. Herbert Spencer. Accord= 





taneous and successive, in correspondence with | 
external co-existenees and sequences,” *ormore — ~ 
shortly “The continuous adjustment of inter-— c 


ample or two will render these important state,’ 
ments at once intelligible. ve 
The essential characteristic of a living is 
organism, according to these definitions, 1s ; 
that it is in vital connection with its general — 
surroundings. A human being, for instance, ~ 
is in direct contact with the earth and alr, ) 
with all surrounding things, with the warmth 


2 ‘Principles of Biology,’ vol. i. p. 74. 































of the sini, with the music of birds, with the 
countless influences and activities of nature 
and of his fellow-men. In biological language 
: hei is said thus to be “in, correspondence with 
a his environment.” He is, that is to say, in 
~ active and vital connection with them, infiuenc- 
ing them possibly, but especially being in- 
' fluenced by them. Now it is in virtue of this 
correspondence that he is entitled to be called 
alive. So long as he is in correspondence with 
any given point of his environment, he lives. 
To keep up this correspondence is to keep up 
life. If his environment changes he must in- 
_ stantly adjust himself to the change. And he 
continues living only as long as he succeeds 
_ in adjusting himself to the « simultaneous and 
_suecessive changes in his environment,” as 
‘these oceur. What is meant bya change in 
bis environment may be understood from ap 
example, which will at the same time define 
more clearly the intimacy of the relation 
between environment and organism. Let us 
take the case of.a civil-servant whose environ- 
ment i isa distr ict in India» It is a region sub- 


sulting in periodical famines. When such a 
_ period of scarcity arises, he proceeds immedi- 
Y ately to adjust himself to this external change. 
- Having the power of locomotion, he may re- 
move himself to a more fertile district, or, pos- 
_ sessing the means of purchase, he may add to 
his old environment by importation the “ ex- 
ternal relations,” necessary to continued life. 
—: t if from any cause he fails to adjust him- 


156 | 

























ment, his “ iieenal role ”» are no. o longer 
a adjusted to his “external relations,” and his 
life must cease. anys 
-Jn ordinary circumstances, and in’ keane 
“t th. human organisin is in thorough ore ae 
ence with its surroundings ; but when any 
part of the organism by disease or accident is — 
thrown out of correspondence, it is in that 
relation dead. 4 

This Death, this want of correspondence, — 
may be either partial or complete. Part of the” 
organism may be dead to a partofthe environ- 
ment, or the whole to the whole. Thusthe ~~ 
Victim of famine may have a certain number 
of his correspondences arrested by the change — 
in his environment, but not all. Luxuries — 
"Which he once enjoyed no longer enter the 
_ corntry, animals which once furnished his. 
| table are driven from it. These still exist, but 
- they are beyond the limit of his correspondence. 

In relation to these things therefore he is dead. 
: In one sense it might be said that it was the 
- environment which played him false; in an- 
other, tha* it was his own organization—that 
- _ he was unable to adjust himself, or did not. 
-. But, however caused, he pays the penalty with 
~~ partial Death. 

Suppose next the case of a man who is 
thrown out of* correspondence witha part of 
his environment by some physical infirmity. 
.. Tet it be that by disease or accident he has been 
deprived of the use of his ears. The Aaa man, — 































ees with a se and well- detined part of 
- the environment, namely, its sounds. With 
_Yegard to that “ external relation,” therefore, 
he is no longer living. Part of him may tr uly 
be held to be insensible or “Dead.” A man 
who is also blind is thrown out of correspond- 
ence with another large part of his environ- 
ment. The beauty of sea and sky, the forms 
of cloud and mountain, the features and gest- 
ures of friends, are to him as if they were not. 
They are there, solid and real, but not to him; 
he is stillfurther “Dead.” Next, let it be con- 
ceived, the subtle finger of cerebral disease 
lays hold of him. His whole brain is affected, 
and the sensory nerves, the medium of com- 
munication with the environment, cease al- 


still there, but not to him; he is still fur- 


the animal frame not the complicated machine 
we have seen it to be death might come as asim- 
ple and gradual dissolution, the ‘sans every- 
thing’ being the last stage of the successive 
loss of fundamental powers.”? But finally 
some important part of the mere animal frame- 
work that remains breaks down. The corre- 
lation with the other parts is very intimate, 
and the stoppage of correspondence with one 
means an interference with the work of the 


~ 1 Foster’s “ Physiology,*’ p. 642. 


-_ together to acquaint him with what is doing = 
— inthe outside world. The outside world is - 


: _ ther “Dead.” And so the death of parts goes. 
on. He becomes less and less alive. “ Were > 


ear tags i are ae ae 
y bh Oe By 


- 158 


correspond with the air, the heart with the 












rest. Something central has snap 
are thrown out of work. The lungs 


blood. There is now no correspondence ‘what- 0: 
ever with environment—the thing, for it is how : 


-a thing, is Dead. 


This then is Death; “ part of the framework La 
breaks down,” “something has snapped ”— 
these phrases by which we describe the phases _ 


_of death yield their full meaning. They are 


different ways of saying that “ correspondence” 
has ceased. And the scientific meaning of | 
Death now becomes clearly intelligible. Dying ~ BO 
is that breakdownin an organism which throws — By 
it out of correspondence with. some, necessa 

part of the environment. Death is the resu ae 
produced, the want of correspondence. Wedo 
not say that this is all that is involved. But 
this is the root idea of Death—Failure to. 
adjust internal relations to external relations, ~ 
failure to repair the broken inward connection — 
sufficiently to enable it to correspond again 
with the old surroundings. Thesepreliminary « 
statements may be fitly closed with the words 
of Mr. Herbert Spencer: * Death by natural 
decay occurs because in old age the relations - 
between assimilation, oxidation, and genesis - 
of force going on in ‘the or ganism gradually 
fall out of correspondence with tbe relations 
between oxygen and food and absorption of . 
heat by the environment. Death from disease __ 
arises either when the organism is congenitally 
defective in its power to balance the erdinary — 
external actions: by the ordinary internal ace — 


, 


ee ee eee 








( 8, OF J yehen ies Ane den pidce some un. 

usual external action to which there was no — 
- answering internal action.. Death by accident — 
implies some neighboring mechanical changes 
tf which the causes are either unnoticed from 
inattention, or are so intricate that their results 
eannot be foreseen, and consequently certain 
_ felations in the organism are not adjusted to 
_ the relations in *h> environment.” ? 

With the help of these plain biologicalterms 
we may now proceed to examine the parallel — 
bs ‘phenomenon of Death in the spiritual world. 

a he factors with which we have to deal are 

bet two i in number as before—Organism and En- © 
Br _ wironment. The relation between them may 
once more be denominated by “ correspond- 
~ ence.” And the truth to be emphasized re 
' . solves itself into this, that Spiritual Death isa ~ 
ia ~ want of correspondence between the organism 
- ‘nd the spi-itual environment. P 
_ What “is the spiritual environment? This 
term obviously demands some further defini- — 
' tion. For Death is a relative term. And 
_ before we can define Death in the. spiritual 
'. world we must first apprehend the particular 
'- relation with reference to which the expression 
- . ts to be employed. We shall best reach the 
nature of this relation hy considering for a 
moment the subject of environment generally. 
- By thenaturalenvironment we meantheentire 
Ber surroundings of the natural man, the entire ex- 
ternal world in which he lives and moves and - 






















1 Op. cit., pp. 88, 89. eee 









160 DEATR. — 


has his being. ,Jt is not involved in _the 
that either with all or part of this environment _ 
he is in immediate correspondence. Whether — 
he corresponds with it or not, it is there. Thera 
is in fact a conscious environment and ai 
environment of which he is not conscious; ang 


it must be borne in mind that the conscious 


environment is not all the environment that is. 
All that surrounds him, all that environs him, 
eonscious or unconscious, is environment, 
The moon and stars are part of it, though in 
the daytime he may not see them. The polar 
regions are parts of it, though he is seldom 
aware of their influence. In its widest sense 
environment sinrply means all else that is. 
Now’it will next be manifest that different 
organisms correspond with this environment 
in varying degrees of completeness or incom. 
pleteness. At the bottom of the biological 
seale we find organisms which have only the 
most limited correspondence with their sur: 
roundings. <A tree, for example, correspondy 
with the soil about its stem, with the sunlight. 
and with the air in contact with its leaves 
But it is shut off by its comparatively low de 
velopment froma whole world to which highe: 
forms of life have additional access. The wan{ 
of locomotion alone circumseribes most seri 
ously its area of correspondence, so that to ¢_ 
large part of surrounding nature it may truly 
be said to be dead. So far as consciousness if 
concerned, we should be justified indeed in say 
ing that it was not aliveatall. The murmurof 
the stream which bathes its roots affects it not 








tes in it no wonder. The tender mater- 
of the bird which has its nest among its 
aves stirs noresponsive sympathy. It cannot 
_ correspond with those things. To stream and 
insect and bird it is insensible, torpid, dead. 
_ For this is Death, this irresponsiveness. 
The bird, again, which is higher in the scale 
of life, corresponds with a wider environment. 
The stream is real to it, and the insect. It 
_ knows what lies behind the hill ; ; it listens to 
_ the love-song of its mate, And to much be- 
_ sides beyond the simple world of the tree this 
higher organism is alive. The bird we shouid 
" say is more living than the tree; it has a cor- 
respondence witha larger area of environment. 
_ But this bird-life is not yet the highest life. 
_ Even within the immediate bird-environment 


eld to be dead. Introduce a higher organism, 
lace man himself within this same environ- 
ent, and see how much more living heis. <A 
undred things which the bird never saw in 
nsect, stream and tree appeal to him. Each 
i ele sense has something to correspond with. 
Each faculty finds an appropriate exercise. 
Man is a mass of correspondences, and be- 
ause of these, because he is alive to countless 
_ objects and influences to which lower organisms 
are dead, he is the most living of all cr ‘eatures. 
y, The relativity of Death will now have be- 
me sufficiently obvious. Man being left out 


e partly living ait nartle dead. The nha 


: . marvellous insect-life beneath its shadow 

























% Biers 3 is much to which the bird must still be> 


. 
































A. still idee por tio ae this fies area 
the possession of the insect and the bird. 
Theirs also, nevertheless, is but a little wor 
and to an immense further area insect and bird 
are dead. All organisms likewise are living 
and dead—living to all within the cireum- — 
ference of their correspondenees, dead to all. 
beyond. As we rise in the seale of life, how- 
ever, it will be observed that the sway of Death 
is gradually weakened. Moreand more of the 
environment becomes accessible as we ascend, 
and the domain of life in this way slowly ex~’ 
tends in ever-widening cireles. But until man 
appears there is no organism to correspond ~ 
with the whole environment. Till then the — 
outermost circles have no correspondents, To 
the inhabitants of the innermost sphens they 
are as if they were not. 

Now follows a momentous question. Is 
man in correspondence with the whole enyiron= ~ 
ment? When we reach the highest living ie 
organism, is the final blow dealt to the king-" se 
dom of Death? Has thelastacre of the infinite ~ 
area been taken in by his finite faculties? Is ~ 
his conscious environment the whole environ- — 
ment? Or is there, among these outermost 
circles, one which with his multitudinous cor- 
respondences he fails to reach? Ifso, this is 
Death. The question of Life or Death to him 
is the question of the amount of remaining en 
vironment he is able to compass. If there 





e Mireteon: 4 he is, with ee to that 
circle or segment, dead. 
What then, practically, i is the state of the 


whole environment or is he not? There is but 
me auswer. He isnot. Of men generally it 
nnot be said that they are in living contact 
with that part of the environment which is 
’ called the spiritual world. In introducing this 
a new term spiritual world, observe, we are not 
| interpolating a new factor. This is an es- 
"sential part of the old idea. We have been 
~ following out an ever-widening environment 
from point to point, and now we reach the 
outermost zones: The spiritual world is 
-simply the outermost segment, circle, or 
_ direles, of the natural world. For purposes of 
' convenience we separate the two just as we 
» separate the animal world’ from the plant. 
' But the animal world and the plant world are 


one environment. And the natural and spir- 
itual are likewise one. The inner circles 
- are called the natural, the outer the spiritual. 
_ And we call them spiritual simply because 
_ they are beyond us or beyond a part of ns. 
_ What we have correspondence with, that we 
- eall natural; what we have little or no cor- 

respondence ‘with, that we cali spiritual. But 
hen the appropriate corresponding organism 
ippears, the organism, that is, which can 
fr ely communicate with these outer circles, 


ease? Ts man in correspondence with the 


the same world. They are different parts of — 





























164 DEATH. 


/ 


the distinction necessarily disappears. The 
spiritual to it becomes the outer circle of the 







natural. a. 


Now of the great mass of living organis 
of the great mass of men, is it not to be affirm 
that they are out of correspondence with this 
outer circle ? Suppose, to make the final issue 
more real, we give this outermost circle of en- 
vironment a name. Suppose we call it God. 
Suppose also we substitute a word for “corre. 
spondence” to express more intimately the 
personal relation. Let us call it Communion. 
We can now determine accurately the spirivaal 
relation of different sections of mankind, 
Those who are in communion with God ‘ve, 
those who are not are dead. 

The extent or depth of this communion, the 
varying degrees of correspondence in different 
individuals, and the less or more abundant life 
which these result in, need not concern us for 


the present. The task we have set ourselves” 


is to investigate the essential nature of Spir- 
itual Death. And we have found it to e msist 
in a want of communion with God. The un- 
spiritual man is he who lives in the circum. 
scribed environment of this present world. 
«« She that liveth in pleasure is Dead \/hileshe 
liveth.” “To be carnally minded j* Death.” 
To be carnally minded, translated into the 
language of science, is to be limited in one’s 
correspondences to the environment of the 


natural man. It is no necessary part of the ~ 
conception that the mind should be either pur- 
posely irreligious, or directly vicious, The ~ 


ay 







































sind of the flesh, ‘oi ric dapat by its very 
ature, limited capacity, and time-ward ten- | 
lency, is @4varoc, Death. This earthly mind 
nay be of noble calibre, enriched by culture, 
high-toned, virtuous and pure. But if it know 
_ not God? What though its correspondences 
reach to the stars of heaven or grasp the 
magnitudes of Time and Space? The stars 
aa ot heaven are not heaven. Space is not God, 
a ‘This mind, certainly, bas life, life up to its level. 
_ There is no trace oi Death. Possibly too, it 
' carries its deprivation lightly, and, up to its 
- level, lives content. We do not picture the 
' possessor of this carnal mind as in any 
_ sense a monster. We have said he may be 
 high-toned, virtuous, and pure. The plant is 
- not a x,onster because it is dead tothe voice of 
_ the bird, nor is hea monster whois dead to 
_ the voice of God. The contention at present 
simply is that he is Dead. 
' We donot need to go to Revelation for the 
_ proofof this. That “has been rendered un- 
= _hecessary by the testimony of the Dead them- 
* selves. Thousands have uttered themselves 
' upon their relation to the Spiritual World, and 
_ from their own lips we haye the pr oclamation 
_ of their Death. The language of theology in 
hb describing the state of the natural man isoften 
” pesoroed assevere. The Pauline anthropology 
' has been challenged as an insult to human 
nature. Culture has opposed the doctrine that 
- “The natural man receiveth not the things of 
he Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto 
m : neither can he know them, because they 
















166 DEATH. 
are spiritually discerned.” And e 
modern theclogies have refused to accept | 
most plain of the aphorisms of Jesus, 1) 
“ Except a man be born again he cannot see 
the Kingdom of God.” But this stern doctriie _ 
of the spiritual deadness of humanity is no — 
mere dogma of a past theoldgy. The history * 
of thought during the present century proves’ 
that the world has come round spontaneously 
to the position of the first. One of the ablest 
philosophical schools of the day erects a whole 
antichristian system on this very doctrine. 
Seeking by means of it to sap the foundation 
bi spiritual religion, it stands unconsciously as” 
the most significant witness for its truth. 
What is the creed of the Agnostic, but the con- 
fession of the spiritual numbness of humanity ?- 
The negative doctrine which it reiterates with 
such sad persistency, what is it but the echo 
of the oldest of scientific and religious 
truths ? And what are all these gloomy and ~~ 
rebellious infidelities, these touching, and too 
sincere confessions of universal nescience, but 
a protest against this ancient law of Death ? 
The Christian apologist never further misses 
the mark than when he refuses the testimony 
of the Agnostic to himself. When the Agnos- 
tic tells me he is blind and deaf, dumb, torpid 
and dead to the spiritual world, I must believe 
him. Jesus tells me that. Paul tells methat. — 
Science tells me that. He knows nothing of 4 
this outermost circle ; and we are compelled to — 
trust his sincerity as readily when hedeplores 
it as if, being a man without an ear, he pro- 


















Ate 






: o know ‘Hothing of a aaa) world or 
ig without taste, of a world of art. The 
science of the Agnostic philosophy is the 
proof from experience that to be carnally 
“minded is Death. Let the theological value of 
the concession be duly recognized. It brings 
no solace to the unspiritual man to be told he 
‘is mistaken. To say he is self-deceived is 
neither to compliment him nor Christianity. 
He builds in all sincerity who raises his altar 
to the Unknown God. He does not know God. 
_ With all his marvellous and complex correspon-— 
_. dences, he is still one correspondence short. 
Dk UNAS: point worthy of special note that the 












he 


eo from science rather than from religion. Its 
a 4 Seana acceptance by thinkers is based upo 
' the universal failure of a universal experiment. 
The statement, therefore, that the natural man 
neh not the things of the spirit, is never 
_to be charged against the intolerance of theo- 
_ logy. There is no point at which theology has 
been more modest than here, It has left the 
preaching of a great fundamental truth almost 
entirely to philosophy and science. And so- 
very moderate has been its tone, so slight has 
been the emphasis placed upon the paralysis of 
_ the natural with regard to the spiritual, that it 
may seem to some to have been. intolerantly 
tolerant. No harm certainly could come now, 
‘no offence could be given to science, if religion 
asserted more clearly its right to the spiritual 












Gon of one of the most revolutionary 








proclamation of this truth has always come — ‘ 





orld. Science has paved the way for the ~ 





. 
a 


168 DEATH, 1 
doctrines of Christianity; and Gf 
refuses to take advantage of the openin 


1g 
will manifest a culpable want of confidence in 
itself. There never was a time when its funda- 






mental doctrines could more boldly be pro- 


claimed, or when they could better secure the — 
respect and arrest the interest of Science. — 
To all this, and apparently with force, it 


may, however, be objected that to every man — 


who truly studies- Nature there is a God. 
Call him by whatever name—a Creator, a 


Supreme Being, a Great First Cause, a Power 


that makes for Righteousness—Science has a 
God; and he who believes in this, in spite of 
all protest, possesses a theology. “If we will 
look at things, and not merely at words, we 
shall soon see that thescientifie man has a the-__ 
ology and a God, a most impressive theology, a 

most awful and ‘glorious God. I say that man 
believes in a God, who feels himself in the 
presence of a Power which is not himself, and 
is immeasurably above himself, a Power in the 
contemplation of which he is absorbed, in the 
knowledge of which he finds safety and happi- 


ness. And such now is Nature to the scien- — 


tific man.”? Such now, we humbly submit, is 
Nature to very few. Their own confession 18 
“against it. That they are “absorbed” in the 
contemplation we can well believe. That they ~ 


might “find safety and happiness” in the ~ 


knowledge of Him is also possible—if they had — 


it. But this is just what they tell us they ; 


1 “Natural Religion,” p. 19. 


: 
‘ 











the aero ile: is itself the ‘an dearer 
f an Environment beyond themselves, and for 
hich they feel they lack the correspondence. 
t is this want that makes their God the Un- 
mown God. And itis this that makes them 













We have not said, or implied, that there is 
nota God of Nature. We have not affirmed 

that there is no Natural Religion. We are 
_ assured there is. We are even assured that 
- without a Neligion of Nature, Religion is only 
half complete; “that without a God of Nature, 
_ the God of Revelation i is only half intelligible 
and only partially known. God is not confined 
gs outermost circle‘of environment, He lives 
and moves and. has his being in the whole. 

_ Those who only seek Him in the further zone 
- ean only finda part. The Christian who knows 
a not God in Nature, who does not, that is to 
Be say, correspond with the whole environment, 
most certainly is partially dead. The author 
of “Ecce Homo” may be partially right when 
he says: “I think a bystander would say that 
though Christianity had in it something far 
higher and deeper and more ennobling, yet the 
average scientific man worships just at present 
more awful, and, as it were, a greater Deity 
han the average Christian. In so many 
Christians the idea of God has been degraded 
by childish and little-minded teaching; the 
ternal and the Infinite and the All-embracing 
as been represented as the head of the cleri- 






























170 DEAE 























cal interest, as a sort of clergym 
of schoolmaster, as a sort of pl 
But the scientific man knows 
eternal; in astronomy, in geology, | 
familiar with the countless millenniums : 
lifetime. The scientific man strains his min 
actually to realize God’s infinity. As far 
as the fixed stars he traces Him, ‘di 
inexpressible by numbers that have 
Meanwhile, to the theologian; infini 
eternity are very much of empty words when 
applied to the Object of his worship. He does 
not realize them in actual facts and definite 
computations.”? Let us accept this rebuke. 
The principle that want of correspon 
Death applies all round. He who kno 
God in Nature only partially lives. The 
yerse of this, however, is not true; and th 
the point we are insisting on.. He who k 
God only in Nature lives not. There is 
“correspondence” with an Unknown God, no 
“continuous adjustment” to a fixed First 
Cause. There is no “assimilation ” of Natural 
Law ; no growth in the Image of “the All-ems 
bracing.” To correspond with the God of’ | 
Science assuredly is not to live. “This is Lite | 
Eternal, to know Thee, the true God,and Jesus 
Christ Whom Thou hast sent.” ! Pa ae a 
From the service. we have tried to make § 
natural science render to our religion, we 


might be expected possibly to take a 
ion of 


ad 


position that the absolute contributi 





1‘* Natural Religion,” p. 20, 





On the 
The absolute con- 
ibution, that is, is very small. The contri- 
bution on the whole i is immense, vaster than 
we have yet any idea of. But without the aid 
of the higher Revelation this many-toned and 
far-reaching voice had been forever dumb. 
-. The light of Nature, say the most for it, isdim 
“how dim we ourselves, with the glare of 
_ other Light upon the modern world, can: only 
_ realize when we seck among the pagan records 
of the past for the gropings atter truth of 
those whose only light was this. Powerfully 
significant and touching as these efforts were: 
a in their success, they are far more significant 
~ and touching in their failure. For they did 
» fail. Itrequires 110 philosophy now to speculate 
on the adequacy or inadequacy of the Religion 
- of Nature. For us who coula never we sigh ib ae 
rightly i in the scales of Truth it has been tried 
in the balance of experience and found want- 
ing. Theism is the easiest of all religions to 
i get, but the most difficult tokeep. Individuals : 
have kept it, but nations never. Socrates and — 
i) Roictotle, Cicero and Kpictetus had a theistic 
religion; Greece and Rome had none. And 
_ even after getting what seems like a firm place 
in the minds of men, its unstable equilibrium —_ 
sooner or later betrays itself. On the one 
hand theism has always fallen into the wildest 
polytheism, or on the other into the blankest 
atheism. ‘It is an indubitable historical fact 
at, outside of the sphere of special revela- 
, man has never obtained such a knowl. | 









































































172 DEATH ae 
edge of God as a responsible and 1 
being plainly requires. The wisdom of the 
then world, at its very best, was utterly ing 
quate to the accomplishment of such a task 
creating a due abhorrence of sin, controlling the — 
passions, purifying the heart and ennobling the 
conduct.” } é nr 
What is the inference? That this poor 
rushlight by itself was never meant to lend 
the ray by which man should read the riddle 
ofthe universe. The mystery is too. impene- — 
trable and remote for its uncertain flicker to — 
more than make the darkness deeper. What — 
indeed if this were not a light at all, but only — 
part of a light—the carbon point, the fragment 
of calcium, the reflector in the great Lantern 
which contains the Light of the World ? Wy 
This is one inference. But the most impor-— 
tant is that the absence of the true Light ~ 
means moral Death. The darkness of the ~ 
natural world to the intellect is not all, © 
What history testifies to is, first the partial, 
and then the total eclipse of virtue thatalways 
follows the abandonment of belief in a per- © 
sonal God. Jt is not, as has been pointed out ~ 
a hundred times, that morality in the abstract 
disappears, but the motive and sanetion are ~ 
gone. There is nothing to raise it from the ~ 
dead. Man’s attitude to it is left to himself. — 
Grant that morals have their own base in hu- ~ 
man life; grant that Nature hasa Religion ~ 
whose creed is Science; there is yet nothing — 


1 Prof, Flint, ‘‘Theism,” p, 305, 0 ip.) 




























. Death. Morality has the power to dictate but 
none to move. Nature directs but cannot con- 
trol. As was wisely expressed in one of many 
pregnant utterances during a recent Sympo- 
sium, “Though the decay of religion may 
leave the institutes of morality intact, it drains 
off their inward power. The devout faith of 
men expresses and measures the intensity of 
_ their moral nature, and it cannot be lost with 
- out'a remission of enthusiasm, and under this 
low pressure, the successful re-entrance of 
- importunate desires and clamorous passions 
_ which have been driven back. To believe in 
an ever-living and perfect Mind, supreme over 
_ the universe, is to invest moral distinctions 
with immensity and eternity, and lift them 
_ from the provincial stage of human society to 
the imperishable theatre of all being. When 
planted thus in the very substance of things, 
- they justify and support the ideal estimates 
_ of the conscience; they deepen every guilty 
. shame; they suarantee every righteous hope; 
a aud they help the will with a Divine casting- 


mi 
£ 


morality has a basis in human society, that 
_ Nature has a Religion, surely makes the Death 
_ of the soul when left to itself all the more ap- 
palling. It means that, between them, Nature 
and morality provide all for virtue—except 
the Life to live it. 


_1Martineau. Vide the whole Symmposininn on ‘* The 
ppabiences upon Morality of a Decline in Religious Be- 
ief.’’—Nineteenth Century, vol. i. pp. 381, 581, 





vote in every balance of temptation.”? That. 




















174 DEATH. ’ 

It is at this point accordingly that 
ject comes into intimate contact with Religion 
The proposition that “to be carnally minded 
is Death” even the moralist will assent to. a i 
But when it is further announced that “the 
carnal mind is enmity against God” we find 
ourselves in a different region. And when we 
find it also stated that “the wages of sim is) 
Death,” we are in the heart of the profoundest —__ 
questions of theology. What before was 
merely “enmity against society” becomes 
“enmity against God;” and what was “vice? _ 
is “sin.” The conception of a God gives an 
altogether new color to worldliness and vice. | 
Worldliness % changes into heathenism, vice 
into blasphemy. The carnal mind, the mind ~ 
which is turned away from God, which will 
hot correspond with God—this is not moral 
only but spiritual Death. And Sin, that which © 
separates from God, which disobeys God, 
which can not in that state correspond with 
God—this is hell. 

To the estrangement of the soul from Goa 
the best of theology traces the ultimate cause 
of sin. Sin is simply apostasy from God, un- 
belief in God. “Sin is manifest in its true 
character when the demand of holiness in the 
conscience, presenting itself to the man as one 
of loving submission to God, is put from him 
with aversion. Here sin appears as it really is, 
a turning away from God ; and while the eae é 
guilt is enhanced, there ensues a benumbing of 
the heart resulting from the crushing of those - § 
higher impulses. This is what is meant ot the 
































Saacigt EATH. 


te state of those who reject Christ and 





‘the-closing of the heart against the highest 
’ love.’? The other view of sin, probably the 
_ more popular at present, that sin consists in 
"selfishness, is merely this from another aspect. 
_ Obviously if the’ mind turns away from one 
_ part of the environment it will only do so under 
some temptation to correspond with another. 
This temptation, at bottom, can only come from 
- one source—the love of self. The irreligious 
_ man’s correspondences are concentrated upon 
» himself. He worships himself. Self-gratifi- 
' ation rather than self-denial; independence 
_ Yather than submission—these are the rules of 


- commonest form of idolatry. 


emphasize we find both equally connected with 
Death. If sin is estrangement from God, this 
“very estrangement is Death. It is a want of 
correspondence. — If sin is selfishness, it is con- 
_ ducted at the expense of life. Its wages are 


shall lose it.” 

Yet the paralysis of the moral nature apart 
_ from God does not only depend for its evidence 
_ upon theology or even upon history. From 
_ the analogies of Nature one would expect this 
result as a necessary consequence. The de- 


1Miiller ; ‘Christian Doctrine of Sin,” 2d Ed. vol. 


ioe 




























ill not believe the Gospel, so often spoken of 
the New Testament; this unbelief is just 


But whichever of these views of sin we 


 Death—*he that loveth his life,” said Christ, 


elopment of any organism in any direction is _ 





life. And this is at once the poorest and the | 










176 DEATH, 


dependent on its environment. A living cell 


cut off from air will die’ A seed-germ ay 


apart from moisture and an appropriate tem- 
perature will make the ground its grave for 
centuries. Human nature, likewise, is subject 


to similar conditions. It can only develop in 


presence of its environment. No matter what 
its possibilities may be, no matter what seeds 
of thought or virtue, what germs of genius or 
_ of art, lie latent in its breast, until the appro- 
priate environment presents itself the corre- 
spondence is denied, the development discour- 
raged, the most splendid possibilities of life 
remain unrealized, and thought and virtue, 
genius and art, are dead. The true environ- 
ment of the moral life is God. Here conscience 


wakes. Here kindles love. Duty here be- 


comes heroic; and that righteousness begins 
to live which alone is to live forever. But if 
this Atmosphere is not, the dwarfed soul must 
perish for mere want of its native air. And 
its Death is a strictly natural Death. Itis not 


an exceptional judgment upon Atheism. In 


the same circumstances, in the same averted 
relation to their environment, the poet, the 
musician, the artist, would alike perish to po- 
etry, to music, and to art. Every environment 
is a cause. Its effect upon me is exactly pro- 
portionate to my correspondence with it. IfI 
correspond with part of it, part of myself is 
influenced. If I correspond with more, more 
of myself is influenced; if with all, all is in- 
fluenced. If I correspond with the world, I be- 


4 
Bb 
voy 


* 
oo 
. 


come worldly; if with God, I become Divine. — 






















~ As without ene of the seientae man 

ash the natural environment there could be 
no Science and no action founded on the knowl- 
edge of Nature, so without communion with the 
spiritual Environment there can be no Religion. 
To refuse to cultivate the religious relation is 
to deny to the soul its highest right—the right 
to a further evolution. 

We have already admitted that he who knows 
not God may not be a monster; we cannot say 
he will not be a dwarf. This precisely, and on 
perfectly natural principles, is what he must 
be. Youcan dwarf a soul just as you can dwarf 
_  aplant, by depriving it of a full environment. 
_  Sucha soul for a time may have “a name to 
_ live.” Its character may betray no sign of 
atrophy. But its very virtue somehow has 
f the pallor of a flower that is grown in dark- 
ness, or as the herb which has never seen the 
sun, no fragrance breathes from its spirit. To 


Y 


mediate subject, that it is not only a right but a duty te 
exercise the spiritual facu.ties, a duty demanded not 
by religion merely, but by science. Upon _biological 
principles man owes his full development to himself, 
E to nature, and to his fellow-men. Thus Mr. Herbert 
Spencer affirms, ‘‘ The performance of every function is, 
in a sense, a moral obligation. It is usually thought 
that morality requires us only to restrain such vital ae- 
tivities as, in our present state, are often pushed to 
excess, or such as conflict with average welfare, special 
or general ; but it also requires us to carry on these vital 
activities up to their normal limits. All the animal 
_ functions, incommon with all the higher functions, have, 
__ as thus understood, their imperativeness.’’—‘* The Data 
"ea eae 2d Ed. p. 76. 


7 
; 11t would not be difficult to show, were this the im- 
* 








example of an irrepr 

ence it is an instance of rest 
and to religion it presents 1 
corpse—a living Death. W 
do not wonder at what men 
often at what they lose.” 











«Tf, by tying its main artery, we stop most of the 
blood going to a limb, then, for as long as the limb 
performs its function, those parts which are called 
into play must be wasted faster than they are re- 
paired : whence eventual disablement. The relation 
between due receipt of nutritive matters through its — 
arteries, and due discharge of its duties by the limb, 
is a part of the physical order. If instead of cutting 
off the supply toa particular limb, we bized the patient 
largely, so drafting away the materials needed for 
repairing not one limb but all limbs, and not limbs 
only but viscera, there results both a muscular debility 
and an enfeeblement of the vital functions. Here, 
again, cause and effect are necessarily related. . . . 
Pass now to those actions more commonly thought of 
as the occasions for rules of conduct.” 


HERBERT SPENCER. 





ote eae oe Ss oe 








MORTIFICATION. 


‘**Mortify therefore your members which are upon 
earth.” —Paul. 
**O Star-eyed Science ! hast thou wandered there 

To waft us home the message of despair ?”—Campbell. 


‘Tue definition of Death which science has 
given us is this: A falling out of correspondence 
with environment. When, for example, a man 
loses the sight of his eyes, his correspondence 
with the environing world is curtailed. His 
life is limited in an important direction; he is 
less living than he was before. If, in addition, 
he lose the senses of touch and hearing, his 
correspondences are still further limited; he is 
therefore still further dead. And when all 


the nerves decline to respond to any stimulus, 
when the lungs close their gates against the 
air, when the heart refuses to correspond with 
_ the blood by so much as another beat, the in- 
_ sensate corpse is wholly and forever dead. 
_ .The soul, in like manner, which has no corre- 
_ spondence with the spiritual environment is 
_ Spiritually dead. It may be that it never 

_ possessed the spiritual eye or the spiritual ear, 
_ ora heart which throbbed in response to the 
ve of God. If so, having- never lived, it can- 


possible correspondences have ceased, when — 























182 MORTIFICATION, — 






these cocrenenccnee | is to be in the state. 
Death. To the spiritual world, to the Divine 
Environment, it is dead—as a stone which has, 
never lived is dead to the environment of the, ty 
organic world. 
Having already abundantly illustrated this 
use of the symbol Death, we may proceed to” 
deal with another class of expressions where 
the same term is employed in an exactly 
opposite connection. It is aproofof the radical — 
nature of religion that a word so extreme 
should have to be used again and again in — 
Christian teaching, to define in different direg- — 
tions the true spiritual relations of mankind. — 
Hitherto we have concerned ourselves withthe — 
condition of the natural man with regard to 
the spiritual world. We have now to speak of 
the relations of the spiritual man with regard 
to the natural world, Carrying with us the 
same essential principle—want of correspond- 
ence—underlying the meaning of Death, we 
shall find that the relation of the spiritual man 
to the natural world, or at least to part of if, 
is to be that of Death. 
When the natural man becomes the spiritual 
man, the great change is described by Christ 
as a passing from Death unto Life. Before 
the transition occurred, the practical difficulty 
was this, how to get into correspondence with 
the new Environment? But no sooner is this 
correspondence established’ than the problem — 
is reversed. The question now is, how to ges ~ 
out of correspondence with the old environ-_ a 


I in Ep ee gg a a et 






i ve : ' 

ment? The moment the new life is begun there 
- eomes a genuine anxiety to break with the old. 
_ For the former environment has now become 
embarrassing. It refuses its dismissal from 
_ eonsciousness. It competes doggedly with the 
new Environment for a share of the corre- 
~ gpondences. And ina hundred ways the former 
_ traditions, the memories and passions of the 
_ past, the fixed associations and habits of the 
: earlier life, now complcate the new relation. 
. Thecomplex and bewildered soul, in fact, finds 
' itself in correspondence with two environments, 
each with urgent bu. yet incompatible claims. 
It isa dual soul living in a double world, a world 
_ whose inhabitants are deadly enemies, and en- 
_ gaged in perpetual civil-war. 
4 The position of things is perplexing. It is 
clear that no man can attempt to live both 
lives. To. walk both in the flesh and in the 
‘spirit is morally impossible. “No man,” as 
Christ so often emphasized, “can serve two 
masters.” And yet, as matter of fact, here is 


Mg IO a eT 
ca ; ee : 


both environments? With sin and purity, 
light and darkness, time and Eternity, God 
and Deyil, the confused and undecided soul is 
now in correspondence. What is to be done 
in such an emergency? How can the New 
_ Life deliver itself from the still-persistent past ? 
_ A-ready solution of the difficulty would be 
_ todie. Were one to die organically, to dieand 
_ go to heaven,” all correspondence with the 
» lower environment would be arrested at a 










a « 


the new-born being in communication with — 


) stroke. For Physical Death of course simply — 


——— me 





> a 
A ine - 


ye Sie 


Pe ee Ea oe ee 



























aa, MORTIFICATION, 


means the final stoppage of all natural corre. 
spondences with this sinful world. But this 
alternative, fortunately or unfortunately, is — 
not open. The detention here of body, and 
spirit for a given period is determined for us, — 
and we are morally bound to accept the 
situation. We must look then for a further 
alternative. rn 
Actual Death being denied us, we must ask 
ourselves if there is nothing else resembling 
it—no artificial relation, no imitation or sem. 
blance of Death which would serve our purpose, 
If we cannot yet die absolutely, surely the 
next best thing will be to find a temporary 
substitute. If we cannot die altogether, in 
short, the most we can do is to die as much ag 
we can. And we now know this is open tous, | 
and how. To die to any environment is to ~ 
withdraw correspondence with it, to cut ours 
selves off, so far as possible, from all com- 
munication with it. So that the solution of — 
the problem will simply be this, for the spirit- 
ual life to reverse continuously the processes 
of the natural life. The spiritual man having 
passed from Death unto Life, the natural man 
must next proceed to pass from Life unto 
Death. Having opened the new set of corre- 
spondences, he must deliberately close up the 
old. Regeneration in short must be accom- 
panied by Degeneration. 
Now.it is no surprise. to find that this is 
the process everywhere described and recom- 
mended by the founders of the Christian sys- — 
tem. Their proposal to the natural man, OF ~ 





+ # 
ee ae ee ee E 





_ rather to the natural part of the spiritual man, 
with regard to a whole series of inimical rela- 
tions, is precisely this. Ifhe cannot really 
die, he must make an adequate approach to it 
by “reckoning himself dead.” Seeing that, 
until the cycle of his organic life is complete 
he cannot die physically, he must meantime 
die morally, reckoning himself morally dead 
to that environment which, by competing for 
his correspondences, has now becoine an ob- 

- stacle to his spiritual life. 

f The variety of ways in which the New Tes- 
- tament writers insist upon this somewhat ex- 
_traordinary method is sufficiently remarkable. 

And although the idea involved is essentially 
the same throughout, it will clearly illustrate 
the nature of the-act if we examine separately: 
three different modes of expression employed 


in the later Scriptures in this connection. The 


methods by which the spiritual man is to with- 


draw himself from the old environment—or — 


from that part of it which will directly hinder 
the spiritual life—are three in number ; 


First, Suicide. 
Second, Mortification. 
Third, Limitation. 


It will be found in practice that these dif- 
ferent methods are adapted, respectively, to 
_ meet three different forms of temptation; so 
: that we possess a sufficient warrant for giving 
a brief separate treatment to each. 
erst, Suicide. Stated in undisguised phra- 























_ God,” he must “die unto sin.” If he does r not 


-, suddenly or not at all. Under this categ Borys 


_ sins of the appetites and passions. Other sins, 


ually may in an isolated case succeed, but even — 


with regard toa Boe of his nature, 
mit suicide. If the Christian is to “live - nto 


kill sin, sin will inevitably kill him. gee 
nising this, he must set himself to reduce the ~ 
number of his correspondences—retaining and — 
developing those which lead to a fuller life 
unconditionally withdrawing those which in — 
any way tend in an opposite direction. This 3h 
stoppage of correspondences is a voluntary act 1 
a crucifixion of the flesh, a suicide, — ih 
Now the least experience of life will make a 
it evident that a large class of sins can only 
be met, as it were, by Suicide. The peculiar 
feature of Death by Suicide is that it is not 
only self-inflicted but sudden. And there are 
many sins which must either be dealt with — 


for instance, are to be included generally 


AE ee ee Sy 


from their peculiar nature, can only be treated 
by methods less abrupt, but the sudden opera- 
tion of the knife is the only successful means 
of dealing with fleshly sins. For example, the 
correspondence of the drunkard with his wine 
is a thing which can be broken off by degrees 
only in the rarest cases. To attempt it grad- — 


then the slightly prolonged gratification is no | 
compensation for the slow torture of a grad- — 
ually diminishing indulgence. “If thine ap: ~ 
petite offend thee cut it off,” may seem at first — 
but a harsh pemney 5 but when we Sage a 


0) 









; ee on Lehre one hand the Peder pain of the 
gradual process, on the other its constant peril, 
Weare compelled to admit that the principle 
_ig as kind as it is wise. The expression “total 
_ abstinence,” i in*such a case is a strictly bio- 
€ eae formula. It implies the sudden de- 
_ struction of a definite portion of environment 
| by the total withdrawal of all the connecting 
links. Obviously of course total abstinence 
_ ought thus to be allowed a much wider ap- 
plication than to cases of “intemperance.” It 
is the only decisive method of dealing with any 
: sin of the flesh. The very nature of the rela- 
- tions makes it absolutely imperative that 
every victim of unlawful appetite, in whatever 

- direction, shall totally abstain. Hence Chrisit’s 
apparently extreme and peremptory language 
defines the only possible, as well as the only 
_ charitable, expedient: “If thy right eye offend 
- thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. And 
if thy right. hand offend thee, cut it off, and 

east it from thee.” 
The humanity of what is called “sudden 
Z conversion” has never been insisted on as it 
deserves. In discussing “ Biogenesis,” ? it has 
3 ‘been already pointed out that while growth is 
a slow and gradual process, the change from 
_ Death to Life alike in the natural and spiritual 
_ spheres is the work ofa moment. Whatever 
__-Sbe conscious hour of the second birth may be 
_ —in the case of an adult it is probably defined 
wy the first real victory over sin—it is cers“ 
% 








"Page 93. 


t2% : Mad hl Ae parte 
Oe SES LASTS ere oe, 
ER tt, Vin eee i ak ee ie ie) 


~~ ak 
pis We 


Rate rss 


-—_ ., 





Rie 
that on biological principles the real turni 


point is literally a moment. But on moral . 


and humane grounds this misunderstood, per- 
verted, and therefore despised doctrine is’ 
equally capable of defence. Were amy re- 
former, with an adequate knowledge of human 
life, to sit down and plan a scheme for the 
salvation of sinful men, he would probably 
come to the conclusion that the > *st way after 
all, perhaps indeed the only way, to turn a 
sinner from the errors of his ways would be 
to do it suddenly. ; 

Suppose a drunkard were advised to take 
off one portion from his usual allowance the 
first week, another the second, and soon! Or 
suppose at first he only allowed himself to be- 
come intoxicated in the evenings, then every 
second evening, then only on Saturday nights, 
and finally only every Christmas? How 
would a thief be reformed if heslowly reduced 
the number of his ‘burglaries, or « wife-beater 
by gradually diminishing the number of his 
blows? The argument ends with an ad ab- 
surdum. “Let him that stole steal no more,” 
is the only feasible, the only moral, and the 
only humane way. This may not apply to 
every case, but when any part of man’s sinful 
life can be dealt with by immediate Suicide, 
to make him reach the end, even were it pos- 
sible, by a lingering death, would be a 
monstrous cruelty. And yet it is this very 
thing in “sudden~conversion,” that men ob- 
ject to—the sudden change, the decisive stand, 
the uncompromising rupture with the past, the 









“MORTIFICATION. 





"precipitate flight from sin as of one escaping 
or his life. Men surely forget that this 7s an 
escaping for one’s life. Let “the poor prisoner 
run—madly and blindly if he likes, for the 
terror of Death is upon him. God knows, 

- when the pause comes, how the chains will 

gall him still. 

- Itisa peculiarity of the sinful state, that 
as a general rule men are linked to evil mainly 
by a single correspondence. Few men break 
the whole law. Our natures, fortunately, are 
not large enough to make us guilty of all, and 
the restraints of circumstances are usually 
such as to leave a loophole in the life of each 
individual for only a single habitual.sin. But 
it is very easy to see how this reduction of our 
intercourse with evil to a single correspond- 

ence blinds us to our true position. -Our cor- 
respondences, as a whole, are not with evil, 

and in our calculations as to our spiri‘ual con- 
 dlition we emphasize the many negatives rather 


than the single positive. One little weakness, | 


we are apt to fancy, all men must be allowed, 

and we eyen claim a certain indulgence for 

that apparent necessity of nature which we 

call our besetting sin. Yet to break with the 
lower environment at all, to many, is to break 
at this single point. It is the only important 
- point at which they touch it, circumstances or 
_ natural disposition making habitual contact at 
other places impossible. The sinful environ- 
ment, in short, to them means a small but 
well-defined area. Now if contact at this 
point be not broken off, they are virtually 


— +s. 


i 


































in contact still with the whole ronr 
There may be only one avenue between the 
life and the old, it may be buta small and sub. 

terranean passage, but this is sufficient to keep 
the old life in. So long as that remains the 
victim is not “dead unto sin,” and therefore 
he cannot “live unto God.” Hence the rea- 
sonableness of the words, “ Whosoever shall 
keep the whole law, and yet offend at one 
point, he is guilty of all.” In the natural 
world it only requires asingle vital correspond- 
ence of the body to be out of order to ensure 
Death. It is not necessary to have consump- ~ 
tion, diabetes, and aneurism to bring the ee " 
to the grave if it have heart-disease. He who ~ 
is fatally diseased in one organ necessarily 
pays the penalty with his life, though all the | 
others be in perfect health. And such, like- ~ 
wise, are the mysterious unity and correlation 
of functions in the spiritual organism that the ~ 
disease of one member may involye the rum of ~ 
the whole. The reason, therefore, with which 
Christ follows up the announcement of His 7 
Doctrine of Mutilation, or local Suicide, finds — 
her: at once its justification and interpretation; 
« Tf thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and ~ 
cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee | 
that one of thy members should perish, and ~ 
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. ~ 
And ifthy right hand offend thee, cut it off, — 
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for 
thee that one of thy members should perish, © 
and not that thy whole body should be east” 
into hell.” ie eae 


rH 





Secondly, Mortification. The warrant for 
the use of this expression is found in the well- 
known phrases of Paul, “« If ye through the 

, Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body ye shall 
live,” and “ Mortify therefore your members 
~~ which are upon earth.” The word mortify 
here is, literally, to make to die. It is used, of 
course, in no specially technical sense ; and to 
 attemptto draw a detailed moral from the 
pathology of mortification would be equally 
_ fantastic and irrelevant. But without in any 
_ way straining the meaning it is obvious that 
we have here a slight addition to our concep- 
tion of dying to sin. In contrast with suicide, 
‘Mortification implies a gradual rather than a 
‘sudden process. The contexts in which the 
passages occur will make this meaning so clear, 
and are otherwise so instructive in the general 

- eonnection, that we may quote them, from the 
_ New Version, atlength: “They that are after 





j the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they a 


that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 


- For the mind of the flesh is death ; but the | 


mind of the Spirit is life and peace : because 
the mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; 
' for itis not subject to the law of God, neither 
_. indeed can it be : and they that are in the flesh 
_. cannot please God. But yeare not in the flesh, 
but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God 
_ dwell in you. But if any man hath not the 
a Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. And if 
_ Christ is in you, the body is dead because of 
_ sin ; but the Spirit is life because of righteous- 
_ ness. But if the. Spirit of Him that raised up 


i 
“ 
5 
i 








192 MOKTIFICAT. 








Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, F 
raised up Christ Jesus from the dea al 
quicken also your mortal bodies through H: 
Spirit that dwelleth in you. Sothen, brethren, 
we are debtors not to the flesh, to liveafterthe 
flesh : for if ye live after the flesh ye must die; 
but if by the spirit ye mortify the doings Ne 
(marg.) of the body, ye shall live.” 4 WN 

And again, “ ff then ye were raised together 
with Christ, seek ‘the things ‘that are above, — 
where Christ is seated on the right hand of — 
God. Set your mind on the things that are 
above, not on the things that are upon the 
earth. For ye died, and your life is hid with — 
Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, 
shall be manifested, then shall ye also with 
Him be manifested in glory. Mortify there-— 
fore your members which are upon the earth; © 
fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, 
and covetousness, the which is idolatry; for 
which things’ sake cometh the wrath of God 
upon the sons of disobedience; in the which 
ye also walked aforetime, when ye lived in 
these things. But now put ye also awayall - 
these; anger, wrath, malice, railing, shameful 
speaking out of your mouth: lie not one to an- 
other; seeing that ye have put off the old man 
with his doings, and have put on the new man, 
which is being renewed unto knowledge after 
the image of Him that created him.” ? 

From the ::ature of the case as here stated 
it is evident thet no sudden process could en- 


= < 
ee eee ee oe OR eS, Oe ee ee 














han viii 5-13, 1 Col. iii, 1-10. 








_yvelation. To break altogether, and at every 
point, with the old environment, is a simple 







is kept in this world, he must find the old en- 
Fe tient at many points a severe temptation. 
ower over very many of the commonest temp- 
tations is only to be won by degrees, and how-. 
ever anxious one might be to apply the sum- 
mary .method to every case, he soon finds it 
‘impossible in practice. The difficulty in these 
cases arises from a peculiar feature of the 
temptation. The difference between a sin of 
drunkenness, and, let us say, a sin of temper, 
is that in the former case the victim who 
would reform has mainly to deal with the en- 
vironment, but in the latter with the correspon- 
dence. The drunkard’s temptation is a kuown 
and definite quantity. His safety lies in avoid- 
ing some external and material substance. Of 
- course, at bottom, he is really dealing with the 
correspondence every time he resists; he is 
_distinetly controlling appetite. Nevertheless 
it is less the appetite that absorbs his mind 
than the environment. And so long as he can 
» keep himself clear of the “external relation,” 
* to use Mr. Herbert Spencer’s phraseology, he 
has much less difficulty with the «internal 
relation.” The ill-tempered person, on the other 
4 hand, can make very little of his environment. 
_ However he may attempt to circumscribe it in 
certain directions, there will always remain a 
wide and ever- changing area to stimulate his 
pivascibility, His environment, in short, is an 
a, dB - 














—= 









ba hraby aman foe ‘the old into the ical 


mpossibility. So long as the regenerate man’ 










194 MORTIFICALT03 


inconstant quantity, and his most ela € 
calculations and precautions must often nd 
suddenly fail him. 


What he has to deal with, then, mainly i is tia! 


correspondence, the temper itself. And that, 
he well knows, involves a long and eee 
discipline. The case now is not atall a surgica 







but a medical one, and the knife is here of no 


more use than in a fever. A specific irritant — 


has poisoned his veins. And the acrid humors 


that are breaking out .all over the surface of 
his life are only to be subdued by a gradual 


sweetening of the inward spirit.. It is now 
known that the human body acts towards 
certain fever-germs as a sortot soil. The man 


whose blood is pure has nothing to fear. Se , 


he whose spirit is purified and sweetened be- 
comes proof against these germs of sin. “ An- 
ger, wrath, malice and railing ” in such a soil 
ean find no root. 


The difference between this and the former 


method of dealing with sin may be illustrated 
by another analogy. The two processes depend 


upon two different natural principles. The muti- 


lation of a member, for instance, finds-its ana- 
logue in the horticultural operation of pruning, 


where the object is to divert life from a useless _ 


into auseful channel. <A part of a plant which 


previously monopolized a large share of the ~ 


vigor of the total organism, but without yielding 


any adequate return, is suddenly cut off, so that — 


the vital processes may proceed more actively 
in some fruitful parts. Christ’s use of this fig- 


ure is well-known: “Every branch in Me that — 


} 
















ap ys 


a“ 


OL Mt OR TIFT CA TI ON. 195 


bring forth more fruit.” The strength of the 
plant, that is, being given to the formation of 
- mere wood, a number of uséless correspond. 
~ ences have to be abr uptly closed while the use- 
ful connections are allowed to remain. The 
_ Mortification of a member, again, is based on 
_ the Law of Degeneration. The useless mem- 
ber here is not cut off, but simply relieved as 
much as possible of all exercise. This en- 
courages the gradual decay of the parts, and 
as it is more and more neglected it ceases to bea 
channel for life at all. Soan organism “ morti- 
fies” its members. 

Thirdly, Limitation. While a large number 
of correspondences between man and his en- 
vironment can be stopped in these ways, there 
are many more which neither can be reduced 
by a gradual Mortification nor cut short by 
sudden Death. One reason for this is that to 
tamper with these correspondences mi&ht in- 
volve injury to closely related vital parts. Or, 
again, there are organs which are really essen- 
tial to the normal life of the organism, and 
which therefore the organism cannot afford to 
lose even though at times they act prejudi- 
cially. Nota few cor respondences, for instance, 
are not wrong in themselves but only in their 
extremes. Up to a certain point they are law- 
_ ful and necessary; beyond that point they may 
_ become not only unnecessary but sinful. The 
_ appropriate treatment in these and similar 
% cases consists in a process of Limitation. The 
_ performance of this operation, it must be con- 








Wa BS Re Ae ake Ca a, 





Masireth not fruit He purgeth it that it may 

















fessed, requires & most delicate hai 
an art, moreover, which no one & 
another. And yet, if it is not learned b 
who are trying to lead the Christia 
cannot be for want of practice: For, 
shall see, the Christian is called upon to 
cise few things more frequently. 1 fii7 

An easy illustration of a correspondence 
which is only wrong when earried to an 
treme, is the love ‘of money. ‘The love 












beyond that it may become one of the w 
of sins. Christ said: “Ye cannot serve God © 
and Mammon.” | ‘The two services, at a definite 
point, become incompatible, and hence corre- 
spondence with one must cease. At what point, ty 
however, it must cease each man has to de- — 
termine for himself. And.in this consists. at 
once the difficulty and the dignity of Limita-. a 
tion. 

There is another class of cases where the 
adjustments are still more difficult to deter-_ 
mine. Innumerable points exist in our sur-— 
roundings with which it is perfectly legitimate - 
to enjoy, and even to cultivate, correspondence, , 
but which privilege, at the same time, it were 
better on the whole that we did not use. Cir- 
cumstances are occasionally such—the ge 
mands of others upon us, for example, gen 
so clamant—that we have voluntarily to reduce 
the area of legitimate pleasure. Or, sei, 
of it coming from others, the claim may come — 
from a still higher direction. Man’s spiritual — - 
life consists in the number and fulness of be 


























them, to enclose them from the other corre- 
 spondences, to shut himself in with them. In 
_ many ways the limitation of the natural life is 
the necessary condition of the full enjoyment 
of the spiritual hfe. 
In this principle lies the true philosophy of 
_ self-denial. No man is called to a life of self- 
_ denial for its own sake. It is in order to a 
compensation which, though sometimes diffi- 
cult to see, is always real and always propor- 
tionate. No truth, perhaps, in practical re- 
ligion is more lost sightof. We cherish some- 
how.a lingering rebellion against the doctrine 
_ of self-denial—as if our natur e, or our circum- 
_ stances, or our conscience, dealt with us 
oa severely in loading us with the daily cross. 
_ But is it not plain after all that the life of xelf- 
_ denial isthe more abundant life—more abun- 














crucifixion of the narrower life? Is it not a 
_ clear case of exchange—an exchange howeyer 
. where the advantage is entirely on our side ? 
§ We give up a correspondence in which there 
} 


is a little life to enjoy a correspondence in— 


_ which there isan abundant life. What though 
we sacrifice a hundred such correspondences ? 
We make but the more room for the great one 

that is left. The lesson of self-denial, that is 

_ to say of Limitation, is concentration. Do not 

- spoil your life, it says, at the outset with un- 

- worthy and impoyerishing correspondences ; 

and if it is growing truly rich and abundant, 








: respon ences th eleas: Tn FY hi de- 
op these he may be constrained to insulate | 


dant just in, proportion to the ampler 





loser. In seeking to gain its life it has really © 





























198 * MORTIFICATION 


be very jealous of ever diluting its 
yuality with anything of earth. To concen 
upon a few great correspondences, to 6) 
to the death the perpetual petty lareeny of our — 
life by trifles—these are the conditions for the 
highest and happiest life. It is only Limit: 
tion which can secure the Illimitable. Rite 
The penalty of evading self-denial also ag? 
just that we get the lesser “instead of the larger 
good. The punishment of sin is inseparably — 
bound up with itself. To refuse-to denyone’s 
self is just to be left with the self undenied. — 
When the balance of life is struck, the self will 
be found still there, The discipline of life was 
meant to destroy this self, but that discipline 
having been evaded—and wealltosomeextent 
have opportunities, and too often exercise them, 
of taking the narrow path by theshortestcuts — 
—its purpose is balked. . But the soul is the 


lost it. This is what Christ meant when He 
said: “ He that loveth his life shall loseit, and _ 
he that hateth his life in this world shall keep 
it unto life eternal.” 
Why does Christ say: “Hate Life”? Does 
He mean that lifeisasin? No. Life is nota 
sin. Still, He says we must hate it, But we ~ 
must live. Why should we hate what we 
must do? For this reason, Life is not a sin, 
but the love of life may be asin. And the best — 
way not to love life is to hate it. Is it a sin 
then to love life? Not asin exactly, but a 
mistake.. It is a sin to love some life, a mis- 
take to love the rest. Because that love is” 





ive! All that is lavished onsit is lost, Christ 


does not say itis wrong to love life. Ile simply 
says itis /oss. Each man has only a certain 
re) amount of life, of time, of attention—a definite 
_ measurable quantity. If he gives any of it to 
E this life solely it is wasted. ‘Therefore Christ 
a says, Hate life, limit life, lest you steal your 
> love for it from something that deserves it 
;)*- more. 
© Now thisdoes not apply to all life. It is 
- “Jifein this world” that is to be hated. For 
_ ‘life in this world implies: conformity to this 
_ world. It may not mean pursuing worldly 
pleasures, or mixing with worldly “sets ; ; but 
.  asubtler thing than that—a silent deference to 
_ worldly opinion ; ; analmost unconscious lower- 
ing of religious tone to the level of the worldly 


religious world:around ; ; a subdued resistance’ 


to the soul’s delicate promptings to greater 
consecration, outof deference to “ breadth ” or 
fear of ridicule. These, and such things, are 
what Christ tells us we must hate. For these 
“things are of the very essence of worldliness. 
“Tfany man love the world,” even in this sense, 

« the love of the Father is not in him.” 
There are two ways of hating life, a true and 
a false. Some men hate life because it hates 
them. They have seen through it, and it has 
turned round upon them. They have drunk 


t 


_ it, and came to the dregs ; therefore they hate | 


it. This is one of the ways in which the man 
who loves his life literally loses it. He loves 
it till he loses it, then he hates it because it 
_hasfooledhim, The other way is the religious, 








ye © re Oe ee ee ete 





Shas 


pe 


200 


For religious reasons a man dctiberatel 
himself to the systematic hating of his life. 


« No man can serve two masters, for eitherhe 
must hate the one and love’ the other, or else. 


he must hold to the one and despise the other.” 
Despising the other—this is hating life, limit-. 
ing life. It is not misanthropy, but Chris- 
tianity. 

This principle, as has been said, contains the 


true philosophy of self-denial. It also holds” 


the secret by which self-denial may be most 


easily borne. A common conception of self — 


denial is that there are a multitude of things 
about life which are to be put down with a 
high hand the moment they make their appear- 
ance. They are temptations which are not to. 










=— =. tee. 


be tolerated, but must be instantly crushed 


out of being ‘with pang and effort. 

' So life comes to be a constant and sore cut. 
ting off of things which we love as our right 
hand. But now suppose one tried boldly to 
hate these things? Suppose we deliberately 
made up our minds as to what things we were 
henceforth to allow to become our life? Sup- 
pose we selected a given area of our enyiron- 
ment and determined once for all that our cor- 
respondences should go to that alone, fencing 
in this area all round with a morally impassa- 
ble wall? True, to others, we should seem to 
live a poorer life; they would see that our en- 


vironment was circumscribed, and call us nar- — 


row because it was narrow. But, well-chosen, 
this limited life would be really the fullest life ; 


it would be rich in the highest and worthiest, ‘ 









ences. The well-defined spiritual life is not 





poor in is Auuatiost le basest correspond- 


only the highest life, but it is also the most 
easily lived. The whole cross is more easily 


carried than the half. It is the man who trie: 
to make the best of both worlds who makes 
nothing of either. And he who seeks to serve 
two masters misses the benediction of both. 
‘But he who-has taken ‘is stand, who has 


drawn a boundary line, sharp and deep about 


his religious life, who has marked off <ll be- 
_ yond as forever forbidden ground to him, finds 
_ tho yoke easy and the burden light. For this 
_ forbidden environment comes to be as if it 


were not. His faculties falling out of corre- 


_ spondence, slowly lose their sensibilities. And 
the balm of Death numbing his lower nature | 


releases him for the scarce disturbed com- 


_ munion of a higher life. So even here to die 
is gain. 


oa 


34 
i 
S. 












=. 





f 


Speen 
Ue CS 


= 


a 




















‘the final catastrophe. The earth will gradually lose its 






















“Supposing that man, in some form, ist 
to remain on the earth for a long series of years, we 
merely lengthen out the period, but we cannot € 


energy of rotation, as well as that of revolution round 
the sun, The sun himself will wax dim and become 
useless as a source of energy, until at last the favor- 
able condition of the present solar system wal keep 
quite disappeared. 

« But what happens to our system will Ae like. 
‘wise to the whole visible universe, which will, if finite, 
become a lifeless mass, if indeed it be not doomed to 
utter dissolution. In fine, it will become old and Spiess 
mo less truly than the individual. It isa glorious gare 
ment, this visible universe, but not an immortal one. — 
‘We must look elsewhere if we are to be clothed ie 
immortality as with a garment,” 


THE UNSEEN aaa 





.' ss ETERNAL LIFE. 







“This is Life Eternal—that they might know Thea ; 
_ the True God, and Jesus Christ whom ‘Thou hast sent.” 
 =Jesus Christ. 


_ * Perfect correspondence would be perfect life. Were 
there no changes in the environment but such as the 


' erganism had adapted changes to meet, and were it never ‘3 a 
to fail in the efficiency with which it met them, there ea 
would be eternal existence and eternal knowledge.”’— oh! 

- derbert Spencer. ‘ Suva 





One of the most startling achievements of 
recent science is a definition of Eternal Life. 
To the religious mind this is a contribution’ 

of immense moment. For eighteen hundred 
anes only one definition of Life Eternal-was 
d efore the world. Now there are two. 

_. Through all these centuries revealed religion 
_ had this doctrine to itself. Ethics had a voice, 
‘as well as Christianity, on the question of the 
summum bonum; Philosophy ventured to 
speculate on the Being of a God. But ne 
source outside Christianity contributed any- 
thing to the doctrine of Eternal Life. Apart 
from Revelation, this great truth was un- 
guaranteed. It was the one thing in the Chris- 
tian system that most needed verification from 
without, yet none was forthcoming. And 
~ Bever has any further light been thrown upon 

% 205 








206 


the question why in its very nature the Chris- 
tian Life should be Eternal. Christianity itself — 
even upon this point has been obseure. Its 
decision upon the bare fact is authoritative 
and specific. But as to what there is in the 
Spiritual Life necessarily endowing it with the — 
element of Eternity, the maturest theology is 
all but silent. 

It has been reserved for modern biology at 
once to defend and illuminate this central 
truth of the Christian faith. And hence in 
the interests of religion, practical and eviden- 
tial, this second and scientific definition of 
Eternal Life is to be hailed as an announcement 
of commanding interest. Why it should-not 
yet have received the recognition of religious 
thinkers—for already it has lain some years 
unnoticed—is not difficult to understand. The 
belief in Science as an aid to faith is not yet 
ripe enough to warrant men in searching there 
for witnesses to the highest Christian truths. 
The inspiration of Nature, it is thought, ex- 
tends to the humbler doctrines alone. And yet 
the reverent inquirer who guides his steps in 
the right direction may find even now in the 
still dim twilight of the scientific world much 
that will illuminate and intensify his sublimest 
faith. Here, at least, comes, and comes unbid- 
den, the opportunity of testing the most vital 
point of the Christian system. Hitherto the 
Christian philosopher has remained content | 
with the scientific evidence against Annihila- 
tion. Or, with Butler, he has reasoned from i 
the Metamorphoses of Insects to a future life. 


{ 
wy 
Ted ae ae 
Ek ah oe 







ot agait,: ich Gse BES of “The Unseen 
| Tune the apologist has constructed elab- 


' may draw nearer. For the first time Science 
_ 4ouches Christianity positively on the doctrine 
of Inmortality. It confronts us with anactual 
definftion of an Eternal Life, based on a full 
and rigidly accurate examination of the neces-~ 
sary conditions. Science does not pretend 
_ that it ean fulfil these conditions. Its votaries 
make no claim to possess the Eternal Life. It 
. simply postulates the requisite conditions with- 
_ out’ concerning itself whether any organism 
should ever appear, or does now exist, which 
_ might fulfil them. The claim of religion, on 
_ - the other hand, is that there are organisms 
_ which possess Eternal Life. And the problem 
- for us to solve is this: Do those who profess 
to possess Eternal Life fulfil the conditions 
required by Science, or are they different con- 
_ ditions? In aw ord, Is the Christian concep- 
- tion of Eternal Life scientific? 
% It may be unnecessary to notice at the out- 
_. set that the definition of Eternal Life drawn 
up by Science was framed without reference to 
religion. It must indeed have been the last 
_ thought with the thinker to whom we chiefly 
_ owe it, that in unfolding the conception of a 
_ Life in its very nature necessarily eternal, he 
_ was contributing to Theology. 
_ Mr. Herbert ‘Spencer—for it is te him we 
= owe it—would be the first to admit the impar- 








a orate, and certainly impressive, arguments” — 
upon the Law of Continuity. But now we 





2: ga iy 
ote ta ale ot 





208 ETERNAL LIFE. 


' the relations between Environment and Life. © 








tion in which it occurs in his writings, # 
obvious that religion was not even present i 
his mind. He is analyzing with minute care 





He unfolds the principle according to which © 
Life is high or low, long or short. He shows 
why organisms live and why they die: And ~ 
finally he defines a condition of thingsin’°which 
an organism would never die—in which it — 
would enjoy a perpetual and perfeet Life. 
This to him is, of course, but a speculation. — 
Life Eternal is a biological conceit. The condi. — 
tions necessary to an Eternal Life do not exist 
in the natural world. So that the definition ig 
altogether impartial and independent. A Per — 
tect Life, tc Science, is simply a thing whichis 
theoretically possible—like a Perfect Vachum 
Before giving, in so many words, the defini- ’ 

| 





tion of Mr. Herbert Spencer, it will render it 
fully intelligible if we gradually lead up to it 

by a brief rehearsal of the few and simple bi- 
ological facts on which it is based. In eor. 

sidering the subject of Death, we have 
formerly seen that there are degrees of Life. 

By-this is meant that some lives have more 
and fuller correspondence with Environment 
than others. The amount of correspondence, 
again, is determined by the greater or less 
complexity of the organism: Thus a simple 
organism like the Ameeba is possessed of very 
few correspondences. It is a mere sae of 
transparent structureless jelly .for which 
organization has done almost nothing, and 
hence it can only communicate with the small- — 


heh 
ie ms REV Ee, 


Ss Ser ee ee 


ee ee ee 










"ETERNAL LIFE. - 209 
gai possible area of Environment. An. in- 
sect, in virtue of its more complex structur 


corresponds with a wider area, Nature ha 
endowed it with special faculties for reachi1. 


out to the Environment on many sides; it ha; 


more life than the Ameba. In other words, 
it is a higher animal. Man ‘again, whose body 
is still further differ entiated, or broken up into 
different correspondences, “finds himself en 
rapport with his surroundings to a further ex- 
tent. And therefore he is higher still, more 
living still. And this law, that the degree of 
Life varies with the degree of correspondence, 
holds to the minutest detail throughout the 
entire range of living things. Life becomes 
fuller and fuller, richer and richer, more 
and more sensitive and responsive to an ever- 
widening Environment as we rise in the chain 
of being. 

Now it will speedily appear that a distinct 
relation exists, and must exist, between com- 
plexity and longevity. Death being brought 
about by the faiiure of an organism to adjust 
itself to some change in the Environment, it 
follows that those organisms which are able to 
adjust themselves most readily and successfully 
will live the longest. ‘They will continue time 
after time to effect the appropriate adjustment, 
and their power of doing so will be exactly 
proportionate to their eomplexity—that is, to 
the amount of Environment they can control 
with their correspondences. There are, for 
example, in the Environment of every animal 


certain things which are directly or indirectly 


/ 





ae RY POST ee 












210 





it to avoid these dangers in all 





wi 
4 
} 
Ns 
by 
pn 
wi 
‘i 
m9 
a] 
, 





























ETERNAL 





dangerous to Life. If its equipr 
spondences i is not complete enoug 


circumstances, it must sooner or later st 
cumb. The organism then with the most 
perfect set of correspondences, that is, the 
highest and most complex organism, has an 
obvious advantage over less complex forms, 
Tt can adjust itself more perfectly and fre- 
quently. But-this is just the biological way 
of saying that it can live the longest. And 
hence the relation between complexity and 
longevity may be expressed thus—the- ge % 
complex organisms are the longest lived. 
To state and illustrate the proposition con. 
versely may make the point still further clear. — 
The less highly organized an animalis, the less 
will be its chance of remaining in lengthened pe 
correspondence with its environment. At 
some time or other in its career circumstances 
are sure to occur to which the comparatively 
immobile organism finds itself structurally © 
unable to respond. Thus a Medusa tossed 
ashore by a wave, finds itself so out of corre- ~ 
spondence with its new, surroundings that — 
its life must pay the forfeit.’ Had it been able 
by internal change to adapt itself to external 
change—to correspond sufficiently with the — 
new environment, as for example to crawl,’as 
an eel would have done, back into that environ- 
ment with which it had completer correspend- 
ence—its life might have been spared. But = 
had this happened it would continue to live © 
henceforth only so long as it onus es 





es Me 






in Se sibelancs with all the circumstances 


in which it might find itself. Even if, how- 
ever, it became “complex enough to resist the 
ordinary and direct dangers of its environ. 
ment, it might still be out of correspondence 


with others. A naturalist, for instance, might 


take advantage of its want of correspondence 
with particular sights and sounds to capture 
it for his cabinet, or the sudden dropping of a 
yacht’s anchor or the turn of a screw might 
cause its untimely death. 

Again, in the case of a bird, in virtue of its 
more complex organization, there i is command 
over a much larger area of environment. Tt 
ean tale precautions suchas the Medusa could 
not: it has increased facilities for securing 
food ; iis adjustments all round are more com- 


plex ; and therefore it ought to be able to main- 


tain its Life for alonger period. There is still 


a large area, however, over which it has no- 


control. Its power of internal change is not 
complete enough to afford it perfect corre- 
spondence with all external changes, and its 
tenure of life is to that extent insecure. Its 
correspondence, moreover, is limited even with 
regard to those external conditions with which 
it has been partially established. Thus a bird 
in ordinary circumstances has no difficulty in 
adap‘ing itself to changes of temperature, but 
if these are varied beyond the point at which 
ifs capacity of adjustment begins to fail—for 


example, during an extreme “winter—tbe or- 
- ganism being nnable to meet the condition 
— aust peri ish. The human erganism, on the 





wy 





it may be taken as a rule, although it has ex- 








other hand, can respond to this externa. 
dition, as well as to countless other yicissit 
under which lower forms would inevitably 
succumb. Man’sadjustments are to the larg- 
est known area of Environment, and hence he 
ought to be able furthest to prolonghis Life. 
1t becomes evident, then, that as we ascend 
in the scale of Life we rise also in the scale of 
longevity. The lowest organisms are, as a — 


- rule, short-lived, and the rate of mortality di- 


minishes more or less regularlyas weascendin 
the animal scale. So extraordinary indeed is ~ 
the mortality among lowly-organized forms — 
that in most cases a compensation is actually — 
provided, nature endowing them with a mar- — 


Nellously increased fertility in order to guard 


against absolute extinction. Almost all lower 
forms are furnished not only with great re- 
productive powers, but with different methods 
of propagation, by which, in various cireum-. 
stances, and in an incredibly short time, the 
species can be indefinitely multiplied. Ehren- 
berg found that by the repeated subdivisions of 
a single Paramecium, no fewer than 268,000,- 
000 similar organisms might be produced in 
one month. This power steadily decreases as 
we rise higher in the scale, until forms are 
reached in which one, two, or at most three, 
come into being at a birth. It decreases, how- 
ever, because it is no longer needed. These 
forms have a much longer lease of Life. And 






















ceptions, that complexity in animal organisms © 
is always associated with longevity. 


















Be 


‘may Peotapiied that these illustrations © 
e taken merely from morbid conditions. But 
rhether the Life be cut short by accident or 
by disease the principle is the same. All dis- — 
solution is brought about practically.inthesame _ 
way. A certain condition in tlie Environ- 
ment fails to be met by a corresponding con- 
dition in the organism, and this is death. And #3 i 
conversely the more an organism in virtue of | a A 
its complexity can adapt itself to all the parts 4 
of its Environment, the longer it will live = 
_ ©Tt is manifest @ priori,’ says Mr. Herbert — 

Spencer. “that since changes in the physical- 
state of the environment, as ‘also those mechan- _ 
— ical. actions and those variations of avuilable - 
” food which occur in it, are liable to step the 
% processes going on in the organism; and since 
Be _ the adaptive changes in the organism-liave the 
effects of directly < or indirectly counterbalane- 














J 

_ ing these changes in the environment, it fol- 
_ lows that the life of the organism will be short. 
_ . or long, low or high, according to the extent. 
to which changes in the environment are met «. 








by corresponding changes in the organism.” | 
Allowing a margin for perturbations, the life 
will continue only while the correspondence 
oh ‘continues; the completeness of the life will 
be proportionate to the completeness of 
the correspondence; and the life will be © 
Be perfect only when the correspondence is 
perfect.” * 7 
" sf We are now all but in sight of our scientific: iat 


| 1“ Principles of Biology,’ ps 


A> 
bo 





is 


itself Eternal. Sueh an Environment exists. 


* corr espondence with the spiritual world, that 


_ highest, if it is endowed with the finite quality 


214 ETERNAL LIF 


























is an organism suited corrsepantigae ae V i 
exceptional kind. Jt must lie beyond the ~ 
reach of those “ mechanical actions ” gee 
“ variations of available food,” which are 
“liable to stop the processes going on in en 
organism.” Before we reach an Eternal Life ‘ 
we must pass beyond that point at which all 
ordinary correspondences inevitably cease, — 
We must find an organism so high and com a . 
that at some point in its development it s 
have added a correspondence which organo 
death is powerless to arrest. We must in 
short pass beyond that finite region where the 
corr’ espondences depend on’ evanescent and — 
material media, and enter a further re ion 
where the Environment corresponded with is 


The Environment of the Spiritual world is out- 
side the influence of these “ mechanical actions,” 

which sooner or later interrupt the processes: 
going on in all finite organisms. If then we 
can find an organism which has established a 


correspondence will possess the elements of 
eternity—provided only one other condition be 
fulfilled. 

That condition is that the Environment be 
perfect. If it is not perfect, if itis not the 


of change, there can be no guarantee that the 
Life of its correspondents will: be eternal. 
Some change might oceur in it which the 
correspondents had no adaptive changes - to. 

















meet, and Life would cease. But grant a 
_ - spiritual organism in perfect correspondence 
' with a perfect spiritual Environment, and the 
- conditions necessary to Eternal Life are satis- 
fied. . 
The exact terms of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s 
definition of Eternal Life may.now be given. 
And it will be seen that they include essen- 
tially the conditions here laiddown. “ Perfect 
correspondence would be perfect life. Were 
there no changes in the environment but such 
as the organism had adapted changes to meet, 
and were it never to fail in the efficiency with 
which it met them, there would be eternal ex- — 
; istence and eternal knowledge.” + Reserving : 
the question as to the possible fulfilment of 
DM these conditions, let us turn for a moment to 
the definition of Eternal Life laid down by 
h Christ. Let us place it alongside the defini- 
3 tion of Science, and mark the points of con- 
_. taet. Uninterrupted corresponderice with a ye 
___ perfect Environment is Eternal Life according 
toScience. “This is Life Eternal,” said Christ, 
“that they may know Thee, the only true God, ay 
_  andJesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.” Life 
_ Eternal is to know God. To know God is to 
_. correspond” with God. To correspond with 
God is to correspond with a Perfect Environ-- 
ment. And the organism which attains tothis, 
in the nature of things must live forever. 
_ Here is “ eternal existence and eternal knowl- 
_ edge.” 





1 Principles of Biology,’’ p. 88. 
2 John xvii. 



































216 ETERNAL LIFE, 
_ The main point of nereonene between 
scientific and the religious definition is t : 
Life consists in a peculiar and personal relation ti 
defined as a “correspondence.” Thisconcep- — 
tion, that Life consists in correspondences, has 
“been so abundantly illustrated already thatit — 
is now unnecessary to discuss it further. All 
Life indeed consists essentially in correspond. 
ences with various Environments. The artist’s 
life isa correspondence with art; the musi- 
-cian’s with music. To cut them off from these 
Environments is in that relation to cut off 
their Life. To be cut off from all, Environ. — 
ment is death. To find a new Environment 
again and cultivate relation with itis to find 
anew Life.» To Live is to correspond, and to. 
correspond is to live. So much is true im — 
Science. But it is also true in Religion. And 
itis of great importance “to observe that to | 
Religion also the conception of Life is a corre. 
spondence. No truth of Christianity has been” 
more ignorantly or wilfully travestied thanthe 
doctrine of Immortality. The popular idea, in — 
spite of a hundred protests, is that Eternal Life 
is to live forever. A single glance at the locus 
classicus, might have made this error impossible =~ 
There we are told that Life Eternal is not to om 
live. Thisis Life Eternal—to know. And yee ~ 
—and it is a notorious instance of the fact that 
men who are opposed to Religion will take their 
conception of its profoundest truths from mere 
vulgar perversions—this view still represents 
_ to many cultivated men the Scriptural doctrine 
of Eternal Life. From time to time the taunt 





Hes aieied at Religion, not unseldom from lips 


which Science ought to have taught more cau- | 
tion, that the Future Life of Christianity is 


simply a prolonged existence, an eternal mo- 
notony, a blind and indefinite continuance of 


"being: ’ The Bible never could commit itself to _ 


any such empty platitude; nor could Chris- 
tianity ever offer to the world a hope so color- 


less. Not-that Eternal Life has nothing to do 


with everlastingness. That is part of the con- 


ception. And it is this aspect of the question 


that first arrests uS in the field of Science. 
But even Science has more in its definition 


_ than longevity. It has a correspondence and — 
an Environment ;and although it cannot fill up 


these terms for Religion, it can indicate at 
least the nature of the relation, the kind of” 
thing that is meant by Life. Science speaks — 
to us indeed of much more than numbers of 
years. It defines degrees of Life. It explains 


a widening’ Environment. It unfolds the re- 
lation between a widening Environment and — 


increasing gomplexity in organisms. And if 
it has no abs olute contribution to the content of 
Religion its analogies are not limited to a 
point. It yields to Immortality, and this is the 
most that Science can do in any case, the 
broad framev7ork for a doctrine. 


- The further definition, moreover, of this 
correspondence as knowing is in the highest » 


degree significant. Is not this the precise 
. qnality inan Eternal correspondence which the 
ate ne of Science would prepare us to look 






ETERNAL LIFE, One 





DR Peas ie i Ny TA a ake 





eS 
‘ 
Sk 

a 
a 

ie. 





218 ETERNAL LIFE, 


for? Longevity is associated with complexity. wi 


And complexity in organisms is manifested by 


the successive addition of eorrespondences, 
each richer and larger than those which have 
gone before. The differentiation, therefore, of — 
the spiritual organism ought to be signalized 
by the addition of the highest possible corre- 
spondence. It is not essential to the idea that 
the correspondence should be altogether novel; 
it is necessary rather that it should not. An 
altogether new correspondence appearing sud- 
denly without shadow orpropheey would be 
a violation of continuity. What we should 
expect would® be something new, and yet 
something that we were already prepared for. 
We should look for a further development in 
harmony with current developments; the ~ 
extension of the last and highest correspond- 
ence in a new and higher direction. And 
this is exactly what we have, In the world 
with which biology deals, Evolution culminates 
in Knowledge. 

At whatever point in the zodlogical scale 
this correspondence, or set of coryespondences, 
begins, it is certain there is nothing higher. 
In its stunted infancy merely, when we meet 
with its rudest beginnings in animal intelli. 
gence, it is a thing so wonderfal, as to strike 
ev..y thoughtful and reverent observer with 
awe. Even among the inverteprates so mar- 
vellously are these or kindrel powers dis- 
played, that naturalists do not hesitate now, 
on the ground of intelligence at least, to clas- 









_ ETERNAL LIFE. 





sify some of the humblest creatures next 
to man himself. Nothing in nature, indeed, 
ig so unlike the rest of nature, so prophetic of 
what is beyond it, so supernatural. And as 
manifested in Man who crowns creation with 
-~ his all-embracing consciousness, there is but 
_ one word to deseribe his knowledge: it is Di- 
- yine. If then from this point there is to be 
any further Evolution, this surely must be the 
correspondence in which it shall take place? 
. This correspondence is great enough to de. 
- mand development; and yet it is little enough 
to need it. The magnificence of what it hag 
_ achieved relatively, is the pledge of the possi if 
bility of more; the insignificance of its con. i 
- quest absolutely involves the probability ot 4 
still richer triumphs. If anything, in short, in ss 
humanity is to go on it must be ‘this. Other (i 
correspondences may continue likewise; others, ‘ 
again, we can well afford to leave "pehind, 
But this cannot cease. This correspondence 
—or this set of correspondences, for it is very 
complex—is it not that to which men with one 
consent would attach Eternal Life? Is there 
anything else to which they would attach it?~ 
Is anything better conceivable, anything 
_. worthier, fuller, nobler, anything which would 
_ Tepresent a higher form of Evolution or offer a 
‘more perfect ideal for an Eternal Life ? 
But these are questions of quality; and the 
i moment we pass from quantity to quality we 
_ leave Science behind. In the vocabulary of 


f A: a nee Sir John Lubbock’s ‘ pnts Bees, and Wasps.” 
EPs? -181. 


ay? 


= 


eee eae 


a ee 
=< =e 










220 


Science, Eternity is only the fraction of 
word. It means mere eyverlastingness. Tx 
Religion, on the other hand, Eternity has litt 


to do w ith time. To correspond with the God ee 
of Science, the Eternal Unknowable, would be — 


everlasting existence; to correspond with “the — 
true God and Jesus "Christ, ” is Eternal Life. — 
The quality of the Eternal Life alone makes 
the heaven; mere everlastingness might be no 
boon. Even the brief span of the temporal — 
life is too long for those who spend its year: 
in s.rrow. Time itself, let alone Eternity, is — 
all but excruciating to Doubt, And many be. 


sides Schopenhauer have. se¢retly regarded _ 


consciousness as the hideous mistake and mal- — 
ady of Nature. Therefore we must not only 


have quantity of years, to speak in the lan. 


guage of the present, but quality of corre= 
spondence. When we leave Science behind, 
this correspondence also receives a higher 
name. -It becomes communion. Other names 
there are for it, religious and theological, It 
may be included ina general expression, Faiths 
or we may Call it by a personal and specific 
term, Love. For the knowing of a Whole so 
great involves the co-operation of many parts. 

Communion with God—can it be demon- 
strated in terms of Science. that this is a 
eorrespondence which will never break? We 
do not appeal to Science for such a testimony, 
We have asked forits conception of an Eternal 
Life; and we have received for answer that 
Eternal Life would consist in a correspondence 
which should never cease, with an Enviro. 













A wh 


ETERNAL LIFE. 221 






_ ment which should never pass away. And yet 
- what would Science demand of a perfect corre- 
- spondence that is not met by this, the knowing of 
God? There is no other correspondence which 
' could satisfy one at least of the conditions. 
- Not one could be named which would not bear 
on the face of it the mark and pledge of its 
mortality. But this, to know God, stands alone. 
To know God, to be linked . with God, to be 
linked with Eternity—if this is not the 
“eternal existence” of biology what can more 
nearly approach it? And yet we are still a 
' great way ofi—to establish a communication 
with the Eternal is not to secure Eternal Life. 
It must be assumed that the communicatior 
could be sustained. And to assume this woulé 
be to beg the question. So that we have still 
to prove Eternal Life. But let it be agair 
repeated, we are not here seeking proofs. We 
are seeking light. We are merely reconnoi 
tring from the furthest promontory of Science t/ 
“sobe that through the haze we may discern 
_ the outline of a distant coastand come to soma 
- conclusion as to the possibility of landing. 
But, it may be replied, it is not open to any 
- one handling the question of Immortality from 
- the side of Science to remain neutral as to the 
- question of fact. It is not enough to announce 
_ that he has no addition to make to the positive 
- argument. This may be permitted with ref- _ 
_ erence to other points of contact between. 
Science and Religion, but not with this. We 
are told this question is settled—that there 
‘is no positive side. Science meets the entire 
pe an ‘ é : ok’ lee 


A) eae 3 
fame 







ae pee ~~ — — Dy chs IS sat % 


BS is 
i 


rater. 


“e 


PIG Pe a a 


asec teialand 






























222 ETERNAL 3} 
conception of immortality w 
negative. In the face of a powerfi 
against even the possibility of a Future 
to content oneself with saying that § 
pretended to no arguinent in favor of it wo 
be at once impertinent and dishonest. — 
must therefore devote ourselves for a mo 
to the question of possibility. 4 

The problem is, with a material body and a 
meas or ganization oe connec 








fabri ie; Ditech ir “inte and mental pre, Ye 
perish ‘alike. With the pronounced positive ~— 
statements on this point from many depart? — 
ments of modern Science we are all. familiar, 
The fatal verdict is recorded by a hundred - 

hands and with scarcely a shadow of qualifi: 
eation. “ Unprejudiced philosophy is com- 

pelled to reject the idea of an individual im- 
mortality and of a personal continuance after — 
death. With the decay and dissolution of its 
material substratum, through which alone it 
has acquired a conscious existence and become 
a person, and upon which it was dependent, — 
the spirit must cease to exist.”? To the same — 
effect Vogt: “ Physiology decides definitely 
and categorically against individual immor- 
tality, as against any special existence of the 


1 Biichner : ** Fores and Matter.” 2 









soul. “The soul pes ee eee the foetus like 
the evil spirit into persons possessed, but is a 
product of the development of the brain, just 
as muscular activity is a product of museular 
development, and secretion a product of gland- 
war development.” After a careful revicw of 
_ the position of recent Science with regard to the 
whole doctrine, Mr. Graham sums up thus: 
“Such is the argument of Science, seemingly de- 
cisive against afuture life. As we listen to her 
_ array of syllogisms, our hearts die witliin us. 
_ The hopes of men, placed in one scale to be 
_ weighed,seem to fly up against the massive 
Ag - weight of her evidence, placed in the other, 
_ It seems as if all our arguments were vain and 
-Unsubstantial, as if our future expectations 
were the foolish dreams of children, a. if there 
_ sould not be any other possible verdict arrived 
% at upon the evidence brought forward.” ? 
Can we go on in the teeth of so real an 
_ obstruction ? Has not our own weapon turned 
- against us, Science abolishing with authorita- 
Pere hand the very truth we are asking it to 
define ? 
What the philosopher has to throw into the 
other scale can be easily indicated. Generally 
_ speaking, he demurs to the dogmatism of the 
_eonelusion. That mind and brain react, that 
the mental and the physiological processes are 
_ related, and very intimately related, is beyond 
_ controversy. But how they are related, he 
f. ly algae is still altogether unknown. | The 





























1** The Creed of Science,”’ p. 169. 






























~~ on Persona: Continuance, after a sin 
_ ten-e on the <lcpendence of the soul 


we are still by these facts justified in assertir 


gree positively. We may be as faras ever from : } 


¢ relation of mind and brain 
Hair i ~entity. And not a _ 
aceordin;-y have consistently hesita : 
an. ccnelusion at all. Even Buchner es 
/yont 4urns out, on close amination, to be te 
ta iv_ in the extr eme. In prefacing his ch 
















ma. ifestations upon a material substratt 
re: ‘arks, “ Though we are unable to. ; 
definite idea as to the how of this connecti 








tha‘ the mode of this connection renders it 
parently impossible that they should contingees. 
exist separately.” There is, therefore, a fla 
at this point in the ar oumen’ for materialis 
It may not help the spiritualist in the least | 





a thecry of how consciousness could continue 


‘without the material tissue. But his contention 


secures for him the right of speculation. ‘The | 
path beyond may lic in hopeless gloom ; but it 
is not barred. He may bring forward his - 
theory if he will. And this is something. For 
a permission to go on is often the most that 


' Science can gr ant to Religion. 


Men have taken adv antage of this loophole 
in_various ways. And though it cannot be> 
said that these speculations offer us more than 
a probability, this is still enough to combine _ 
with the deep-seated expectation in the bosom $ 
of mankind and give fresh lustre to the hope « 
of a future life. Whether we find relief i in the 


14 Force and Matter,’ p. 31. : 





iio ; whether, with the “ Unseen Universe.” 
e are helped by the spectacle of known forms 
of matter shading off into an ever-growing 
-subtilty, mobility, and immateriality; or 
whether, with Wundt, we regard the soul as 
“the ordered unity of many elements,” it is 
certain that shapes can be given-to the con- 
eption of a correspondence which shall bridge © 
the grave such as to satisfy minds too much 
_ accustomed to weigh evidence to put them- 
selves off with fancies. 
e.. But whether the possibilities of physiology 
or the theories of philosophy do or do not sub- 
‘Stantially assist us in realizing Immortality, 
is to Religion, to Religion at ‘Jeast regarded 
from the present point of view, of inferior 
moment. The fact of Immortality rests for us 
on a different basis. Probably, indeed, after 
‘all the Christian philosopher never engaged 
himself in a more superfluous task than Ls 
“seeking alone physiological lines to find room _ 
for a soul. The theory of- Christianity has 
only to be fairly stated to make manifest its 
shorough independence of all the usual specu- 
ations on Immort tality. The theory is not 
hat thought, volition, or emotion, as such are 
to survive the grave. The difficulty of hold- 
hg a doctrine in this form, in spite of what 
has been advanced to the contrary, in spite of 
the hopes and wishes of mankind, in spite of 
all the oa ate and Laden ged saci ‘attempts to 








226 ETERNAL LIFE | 





make-it tenable, is still profound. Ni 
theory of personal continuance, as even Butler 
acknowledged, does not equally demand the 
eternity of the brute. No secular theory de-_ 
fines the point in the chain of Evolution at 
which organisms became endowed with Im- — 
mortality. No secular theory explains the — 
eondition of the endowment, nor indicates its 
goal. And if we have nothing more to fan 
hope. than the unexplored mystery of the whole 
region, or the unknown remainders among 
the potencies of Life, then, as those who have 
“hope.only in this world,” we are “of all men 
the most miserable.” 
When we turn, on the ather hand, to the 
doctrine as it came from the lips of Christ, we 
find ourselves in an entirely different region. 
He makes no attempt to project the material 
into the immaterial. The old elements, how- 
ever refined and subtile as to their matter, are 
not in themselves to inherit the Kingdom of 
God. That which is flesh is flesh. Instead of 
attaching Immortality to the naturalorganism, 
He introduces a new and original factor which 
none of the secular, and few even of the theo- 
logical theories, seem to take sufficiently into 
account. To Christianity, “he that hath the 
Son of God hath Life, and he that hath not the 
‘Son hath not Life.” This, as we take it, de- 
fines the correspondence which is to bridge the 
grave. This is the clue to the nature of the 
Life that lies at the back of the spiritual 3 
organism, And this is the true solution e 
the mystery of Eternal Life. 
















esp htcntss “of the spiritual organisms— 
just as there lies a something at the back of 
the natural correspondences. To say that Life 
_ is a correspondence is only to express the par- 
tial truth. .There is something behind. Life 
_ manifests itself in corr espondences. But what 
- determines them? The organism exhibits a 
f variety of correspondences. What organizes 
4 them? As in the natural, so in the spiritual, 








there is a Principle of Life. We cannot get 
rid of that term. However clumsy, however 
provisional, however much a mere cloak for 
- ignorance, Science as yet is unable to dispense — 
- with the idea of a Principle of Life. We 
- must work with the word till we get a better. 
Now that which determines the correspondence 
_ of the spiritual organism is a Principle of 
- Spiritual Life. It is a new and Divine Posses- 
» sion. He that hath the Son hath Life; con- 
ie p versely, he that hath Life hath the Son. And 
_ this indicates at once the quality and the 
: Sqaantity of the correspondence which is to 
_ bridge the grave. He that hath Life hath the 
_ Son. He possesses the Spirit of a son. That 
Spirit is, so to speak, organized within him by 
“the Son. Itis the manifestation of the new 
" nature—of which more anon. The fact te 
_ note at present is that this is not an organic 
- correspondence, but a spiritual correspondence. 
It comes not from generation, but from re- 
generation. The relation between the spirit 
ual man and his Environment is in theological 
nguage, a filial relation. With the new 















928 : ETERNAL LI 






not — 
only the real pelationt but the only possible — 
relation: “Neither knoweth any man the 
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoeyer 
~ the Son will reveal Him.” — And this on purely — 
natural grounds. It takes the Divine to know 
the Divine—but in no more mysterious sense 
than it takes the human to understand the 
human. The analogy, indeed, for the whole ~ 
field here has been finely expressed already by 
Paul: “ What man,” he asks, “knoweth the 
things of a man, save the spirit of man which 
is in him? even so the things of God knoweth 
no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have 
received, not the spirit of the world, but the 
Spirit which is of God; that we might know 
the things that.are fr eely given to us ‘of God.”? 
It were idle, such being the quality of the 
new relation. to add that this also contains 
the guarnztee of its eternity. Here at last i 
a correspondence which will never cease. It 
powers in bridging the ‘grave have been tried. 
The correspondence of the spiritual man pos - 
sesses the supernatural virtues of the Resurrec: 
tion and the Life. It is known by former ex- 
periment to have survived the “changes it 
: the physical state of the environment,” anil 
é those “mechanical actions ” and “ variations of 
F available food,’ which Mr. Herbert Spencer 
; tells us are “liable to stop the processes see 
| on in the organism.” In short, this is a cor: 
i respondence which at once satisfies the a > 


14 Qor, il, 1d, TR Yad 









































“ee it i is: ‘different fam every other cor- 
ondence known. Setting aside everything 


nd provisional; dissecting in to the bone and 
marrow we find this—a correspondence which 
can never break with an Environment which 
ean never change. Here is a relation estab- 
shed with Eternity. The passing years lay 
no limiting hand on it. Corruption injures 
' it not. It survives Death. It, and it only, 
il stretch beyond the grave and be found 
violate— 


** When the moon is old, 
And the stars are cold, 


_ The misgiving which will creep sometimes 


its expression and its rebuke: “ Who shall 
separate us from the love of Christ? Shall 
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or 


Shall these « changes in the physical state of 


death, or life, or angels, or principalities, or 
powers, arrest or tamper with his eternal cor- 
espondences ? “Nay, in all these things we 
e more than conquerors through Him that 
ved us. For I am persuaded “that. neither 
Gee nor ae nor cs sale nor aap eh 


Fal mere 


else i in Religion, everything adventitious, local 


And the books of the Judgment-day unfold.” 


over the brightest faith has already received 


famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” - 


he environment ” ‘which threaten death to the - 
natural man destroy the spiritual? Shall- 












230 ETERNAL LIFE. ; 


love of God, which is in Christ oe 
‘Lord.” HK 
It may seem an objection to some that the 
“perfect correspondence ” should come to man 
in so extraordinary a way. The earlier stages 
in the doctrine are promising enough; they 
are entirely in line with Nature. And if 
Nature has also furnished the “ perfect corre- 
spondence ” demanded for an Eternal Life the 
position might be unassailable. But this sud- 
den reference to a something outside the 
natural Environment destroys the continuity, 
and discovers a permanent weakness in the 
whole theory? To which there is a twofold 
yeply. In the first place, to go outside what 
we call Nature is not to go outside Environ- 
ment. Nature, the natural Environment, is 
only a part of Environment. ‘There is another 
large part which, though some profess to have 
no “correspondence with it, is not on that ae- 
count unreal, or even unnatural. The mental 
and moral world is unknown to the plant. But 
itis real. It cannot be affirmed either that it 
is unnatural to the plant; although it might 
be said that from the point of view of the 
Vegetable Kingdom it was supernatural. 
fi hings are natural or supernatural simply ac- 


cording to where one stands. Manis super- ~ 


natural.to the mineral; God.is supernatural 
tothe man. When a mineral is seized upon 
' by the living plant and elevated to the organic 
kingdom, no trespass against Nature is com- 


mitted. It merely enters a larger Environ- ‘i 


1 Rom. viii. 35-39. 


anil 






ee ey ee ee 























heart of a man, again, is seized upon by the | 
quickening Spirit of God, no further einlbbeoks 
is done to natural law. I is another case of } 
the inorganic, so to speak, passing into nia, 
_ organic. 
" But, in the second place, it is bohipINnel as. 
» if it were an enormity in itself that the spir- 
_ itual correspondence should be furnished from 
- the spiritual world. And to this the answer 
lies in the same direction. Correspondence in 
any case is the gift of Environment. The 
natural Environment gives men their natural 
faculties; the spiritual affords them their 
spiritual faculties. It is natural for “tlre spirit- 
ual Environment to supply the spiritual facul- 
ties; it would be quite unnatural for the nat- 
ural Environment to do it. The natural law 
of Biogenesis forbids it; the moral fact that 
‘the finite cannot comprehend the Infinite is 
against it; the spiritual principle that flesh 
- and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God 
' renders it absurd. Not, however, that the 
_ spiritual faculties are, as it were, manufact- 
‘red in the spiritual world and supplied ready- 
made to the spiritual organism—forced upon 
at as an external equipment. This. certainly 
is not involved in saying that the spiritual 
faculties are furnished by the Spiritual 
world. Organisms are not added to by accre- 
tion, as in the case of minerals, but by growth, 
And the spiritual faculties are organized in the’ 





















nent, fWrhich on was supernatural to it, * 
‘but which now is entirely natural. When the | \t 


Vonghers eo of the soul, just as other Pe id 








i 


232 






faculties are organized in the protop of 

x - the body. The plant is made of materials 

‘ which have once been inorganie, An organiz- 
ing principle not belonging to their kingdom 
lays hold of them and elaborates them until 

- they have correspondences with the kingdom 
to which the organizing principle belonged. 

Their original organizing principle, if it can be 

ealled by this name, was Crystallization; so- 
e that we have now a distinctly foreign power — 
| organizing in totally new and higher directions. 
In the spiritual world, similarly, we find an 
organizing principle at work among the mate- 
rials of the organic kingdom, performing a fur- 
ther miracle, but not a different kind of mir- 
acle, producing organizations of a novel kind, 

. — but not by a novel method. The second pro- 
cess, in fact, is simply what an enlightened 
evolutionist would have expected from the 
first. It marks the natural and legitimate 
progress of the development. And this in the 
line of the true Evolution—not the linear 
Evolution, which would look for the develop. — 
ment of the natural man through powers al- — 
ready inherent, as if one were to look to Crys- — 
tallization to accomplish the development of 
the mineral into the plant,—but that larger 
form of Evolution which includes among its 
factors the double Law of Biogenesis and the 
immense further truth that this involves. 

What is further included in this complex — 
correspondence we shall have opportunity to 
illustrate afterwards.”! Meantime let it be 


. a a oe: 









Pe 


1 Vide ‘‘ Conformity to Type, ”’ page 279. 
























what ¢ the Christian argument for Ta 


whole of historical Christianity—the Resurrec- 
me tion of Jesus Christ. 
It ought to be placed in the forefront of all 
_ Christian teaching that Christ’s mission on 
_ earth was to give men Life. “I am come,” He 
said, “that ye might have Life, and that ye 
_might have it more abundantly.” And that 
He meant literal Life, literal spiritual and 
Eternal Life, is clear from the whole course of 
His teaching and acting. To impose a meta- 
sia meaning on the commonest word of 
e New Testament is to violate every canon 
of interpretation, and at the same time to 
_ charge the greatest of teachers with persist- 
ently mystifying Hlis hearers by an unusual 
) use of so exact a vehicle for expressing definite 
|. thought as the Greek language, and that on 
fe .the most momeritous subject of which He ever 
© spoke to men. It is a canon. of interpreta- 
‘tion, according to Alford, that “a figurative 
sense of words is never admissible except 
‘when required by the context.” The context, 
-in most cases, is not only directly unfavorable 
> to a figurative meaning, but in innumerable 
4 instances in Christ’s teaching Life is broadly 
‘eontrasted with Death. In the teaching of 
aeere apostles, again, we find that, without excep- 





sense. Renss defines the apostolic belief with 
his usual impartiality when—and the quota- 
is doubly pertinent here—he discovers, in 


a rta ty really rests. It stands upon the © 
xp ‘pedestal on which the theologian rests the 


ee 


tion, they aecepted the term in its simple literal — 


















- 234 ETERNAL LI. 


the apostle’s conception of Life, first 
of a real existence, an existence s 
proper to God and to the Word; an imperish- 


able existence—that is to say, not subject to. 
the vicissitudes and imperfections of the finite — 


-world. This primary idea is repeatedly ex- 


pressed, at least in a negative form; it leads 


to a doctrine of immortality, or, to speak more 







correctly, of life, far surpassing any that had — 


been expressed in the formulas of the eurrent 
philosophy or theology, and resting upon pre- 
mises and conceptions altogether different. 
In fact, it can dispense both with the philoso- 
phical thesis of the immateriality or indestruc- 
tibility of the human soul, and with the theo- 
logical thesis of a miraculous corporeal recon- 


struction of our person; thesis, the first of - 


which is altogether foreion to the religion of — 
the Bible, and the second absolutely opposed — 


to reason.” Second, “the idea. of life, as it is 
conceived in this system, implies the idea of a 
power, an operation, a communication, since 


this life no longer remains, so to speak, latent. 


or passive in God and in the Word, but 
through them reaches the believer. It is not 
@ mental somnolent thing; it is not a plant 
without fruit; it is a germ which is to find 
fullest development.” } 

If we are asked to define more clearly what 
is meant by this mysterious endowment of 
Life, we again hand over the difficulty to 


Science. When Science can define the Natural _ 
Midd ‘History of Ne vee Theology in the mses 


Age,” vol. ii. p. 4 
















* i xa ate the Physical Force we may hope for 
ie further clearness on the nature and action of 
- the Spiritual Powers. The effort to detect the 
~ living Spirit must be at least as idle as the at- 
tempt to subject protoplasm to microscopie 
examination in the hope of discovering Life. 
We are warned, also, not to expect too much. 
“Thou canst not tell whence it cometh or 
whither it goeth.” This being its quality, 
when the Spiritual Life is discovered in the 
laboratory it will possibly be time to give it 
up altogether. It may say, as Socrates of his 
soul, “You may bury me—if you can catch 
me.” 

Science never corroborates a spiritual truth 
without illuminating it. The threshold of 
_ Eternity is a place where many shadows meet. 
And the light of Science here, where every- 
_ thing is so dark, is weleome a thousand times. 

~ Many men would be religious if they knew 
~ where to begin; many would be more religious 
_ if they were sure where it would end. ‘It is 
~ not indifference that keeps some men from 
~ God, but ignorance. “Good Master, what 
bi must I do to inherit Eternal Life?” is still 


Religion? What amI to believe? What seek 
with, all my heart and soul and mind ?—this is 
the imperious qfiestion sent up to conscious- 
‘ ness from the depths of being in all earnest 
hours; sent down again, alas, with many of 
eas, time after time, unanswered. Into all our 
thought and work and reading this question 
_ pursues us. But the theories are rejected one 





the deepest question of the aga What is 


Soret 2 ST 


Pea Fe 


1 ee 


ya Mae 


Sai ah ah 
OM oe. 


rh 





236 


FNS Sia 
by one ; the great books are returned sadly to 
their shelves, the years pass, and the problem 
remains unsolved. The confusion of tongues 
here is terrible. Every day a new author- 


es 





ity announces himself. Poets, philosophers,» _ 


preachers try their hand on us in turn. New 
prophets arise, and beseech us for our soul’s 
sake to give ear to them—at last in an hour of 
inspir ation they have discovered the final truth. 


Yet the doctrine of yesterday is challenged by~ 


a fresh philosophy to-day ; and the creed of to- 
day will fall in turn before the criticism of to- 
morrow. Increase of knowledge inereaseth 
sorrow. And at length the conflicting truths, 
like the beams of light in the laboratory ex- 
periment, combine in the mind to make total 
darkness. 

But here are two outstanding authorities 
agreed—not men, not philosophers, not creeds. 
Here is the voice of God and the voice of 
Nature. I cannot be wrong if I listen to them, 
Sometimes when uncertain of a voice from its 
very loudness, we catch the missing syllable 
in the echo. In God and Nature we have 
Voice and Echo. When I hear both, I am 
“assured. My sense of hearing does not betray 
me twice. I recognize the Voice in the Echo, 
the Echo makes me certain‘ of the Voice; I 
listen and I know. The question of a Future » 
Life is a biological question. Nature may be 
silent on other problems of Religion; but here 
she has a right to speak. The whole confusion 
around the doctrine of Eternal Life has arisen 
from aaking it a question of am We 


cca’ Fits 



























| AL LIFE. 237 


pa hearing to any specula- 
; the ethical relations here 
imate and real. But in the 

PEternal Life, as a question of 
oblem for Biology. The soul isa 
@anism. And for any question as to 
Hs Life we must appeal to Life-science. 
Aa what does the Life-science teach? That 
af am to inherit Eternal Life, I must cultivate 
Meee. correspondence with the Eternal. This isa 

/= simple proposition, for Natureis always simple. 
iI take this proposition, and, leaving Nature, 
proceed to fillitin. I search everywhere for 
a clue to the Eternal. I ransack literature for 
a definition of a correspondence between man 
sand God. Obviously that can only come from 
one source. And the analogies of Science per- 
mit us to apply to it. All knowledge lies in 
pEnvironment. When I want to know about 
minerals I go to minerals. When I want to 
know about flowers I go toflowers. And they 
ellme. In their own way they speak to me, 

pach in its own way, and each for itseli—not 
) the mineral for the flower, which is impossible, 
Hnor the flower for the mineral, which is also 
Seumpossible. So if I want to know about Man, 
wi go to his part of the Environment. And he 
“tells me about himself, not as the plant or the 
mineral, for he is neither, but in his own way. 
And if I want to know about God, I go to his 
part of the Environment. And He tells me 
about Himself, not as a-Man, for He isnot Man, 
but in His own way. And just as naturally 
js the flower and the mineral and the Man, 


af ea eee 
i 
pei 


O38 a, TIE ai 


\ 


‘that has been begun. And we shall soon find © 































< 


selves, He tells me about@® 
strangely condescends indeé 
plain to me, actually assuming 
Form of a Man that I at my po 
better see Him. This is my oppé 
know Him. This incarnation is God 
Himself accessible to human thought 
opening to man the possibility of correspom 
ence through Jesus Christ. And this corres 
spondence and this Environment are those I 
seek. He Himself assures me, “This is Life” 
Eternal, that they might know Thee, the only 
true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast 
sent.” Do Inot now discern the deeper mean- 
ing in “ Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent” ? 
Do I not better understand with what vision” 
and rapture the profoundest of, the disciples 
exclaims, “The Son of God is come, and hath 
given us an understanding that we might know 
Him that is true” ?} ! { 

Having opened correspondence with the 
Eternal Environment, the subsequent stages” 
are in the line of all other normal develop- 
ment. We have but to continue, to deepen, 
to extend, and to enrich the correspondence 


to our surprise that this is accompanied by 
another and parallel process. The action is” 
not all upon our side. The Environment also” 
will be found to correspond. The influence of 
Environment is one of the greatest and most } 
substantial of modern biological doctrines. 
Of the power of Environment te form or 


21 John. v. 20. 






























mL transform organisms, of its ability to develop 
OF suppress function, of 10s potency in deter- 
_ Inining growth, and generally of its immense 
influence in Evolution, there is no need now 
to speak. But Environment is now acknowl- 
edged to be one of the most potent factors in 
the Evolution of Life. The influence of En- 
vironment too seems to increase rather than 
diminish as we approach the higher forms of ~ 
_ being. The highest forms are the most 
» mobile; their capacity of change is the 
4 greatest; they are, in short, most easily acted 
o> On by Environment. And not only are the 
_ highest organisms the mest mobile, but the 
highest parts of the highest organisms are 
' more mobile than the lower. Environment 
can do little, comparatively, in the direction of 
“inducing variation in the body of a child; but 
how plastic is its mind! How infinitely 
sensitive is its soul! How infallibly can it be 
- turned to music or to dissonance by the moral 
harmony or discord of its outward lot! How 
ecisively indeed are we not all formed 
--and moulded, made or unmade, by external 
‘circumstance! Might we not all confess with 
‘Ulysses,— 


“T am a part of all that I have met" ? 




















i 
at 
fh 


Much more, then, shall we look for the in- 
2 fluence of Environment on the spiritual nature 
of him who has opened correspondence with 
- God, Reaching out his eager and quickened 

faculties to the spiritual world around him, 2 
shall he not become spiritual? In vital con- 



















: 


tact with Holiness, shall he not become iyi 
Breathing now an atmosphere of ineffable — 
Purity, shall he miss becoming pure? Walk 
ing with God from day to day . shall he fail to. 
be taught of God ? 

Growth in grace is sometimes described. as 
a strange, mystical, and unintelligible process. — 
It is mystical, but neither strange nor unin- © 
telligible. It proceeds according to Natural : 
Law, and the leading factor in sanctification i it eas 
Influence of Environment. The possibility of 
it depends upon the mobility of the.organism ; 
the result, on the extent and frequency — of 
certain correspondences. These facts insensi- 
bly lead on to a further suggestion. Is it not 
possible that these biological truths may carry: 
with them the clue to a still profounder phi-. 
losophy—even that of Regeneration ? . 

Evolutionists tell us that by the influence of — 
environment certain aquatic animals have be. 
come adapted to a terrestrial mode of life. 
3reathing normally by gills, as the result and 
reward of a continued effort carried on front 
generation to generation to inspire the air of 
heaven direct, they have slowly acquiréd the 
jung-function. In the young organism, tras 
to the ancestral type, the gil still persists—as 
in the tadpole of the common frog. But as 
maturity approaches the true lung appears ; 
the gill gradually transfers” i. task to the 
nigher organ. It then becom2s atrophied anid — 
disappears, and finally respiration inthe adult 
is conducted by Jungs alone.t’ We may be eh : 


1 Vide also the remarkable experiments of Fraulein v. 
: , ; f 


















ETERNAL LIFE, 





Stan the pe EN from saying that this is 
proved. It is for those who accept it to deny 
the justice of the spiritual analogy. Is relig- 

- Jion to them unscientific in its doctrine of Re- 
generation? Will the evolutionist who admits 
_ the regeneration of the frog under the modify- 
ing influence of a continued correspondence 
_ with a new environment, care to question the 
possibility of the soul acquiring such a faculty 
as that of Prayer, the marvellous breathing- 
 funetion of the new creature, when in contact 
» with the atmosphere ofa besetting God? Is the 
change from the earthly to the heavenly more 


- t. the terrestrial mode of “Life ? ? Is Evolution 
_ tostop with the organic? If it be objected 
_ that it has taken ages to perfect the function 
- in the batrachian, the reply is, that it will take 
° ages to perfect the function in the Christian. 
- For every thousand years the natural evolu- 
tion will allow for the development of its: 





product millions. We have indeed spoken of 
the spiritual correspondence as already perfect 
—but itis perfect only as the bud is perfect. 
“Tt doth not yet appear what it shall be,” any 
more than it appeared a million years ago 
What the evolving batrachian would be. 

But to return. We have been dealing with 
the scientific aspects of communion with God. 
Insensibly, from quantity we have been led to 








Chauvin on the Transformation of the Mexican Axolotl 
into Amblystoms.—Weismann’s ** Studies in the Theory 
aed ovals iiy pt, Ail. 


mysterious than the change from the aquatic ~ 


_ organism, the Higher Biology will grant its 













| 242 ETERNAL, 


speak of quality. And enough has has 
advanced to indicate gencrally the na 
that correspondence with which is neces ‘. 
associated Eternal Life. There remains but 
one or two details to which we must ee 
and very briefly, address ourselves. = 
The quality of everlastingness belongs, as 
we have seen, to a single corfes ondence, or 
rather to a single set of correspondences. But 
it is apparent that before this correspondence — 
can take full and final effect a further process ~ 
is necessary, By some means it must be sep- 
arated from all the other correspondences — 
of the organism which do not share its pecul- 
jar quality. In this life it is restrained by © 
these other correspondences. They may con- 
tribute to it, or hincer it; but they are ~ 
essentially of a different order. They belong 


not to Eternity but to Time, and to this pres- 


ent world; and, unless some provision ‘is 
made for dealing with them, they: will detain 

the aspiring organism in this present world fill 

Time is ended. Of course, in a sense, all that 
belongs to Time belongs also to Eternity; but » 
these lower correspondences are in their nature” 

unfitted for an Eternal Life. Even if they 

were perfect in their relation to their Environ- — 
ment, they would still not be Eternal. 
However opposed, apparently, to the scientific 
definition of Eternal Life, it is yet true that 
perfect correspondence with Environment is 
not Eternal Life. A very important word in — 
the complete definition is, in this sentence, FY 
omitted. On that word it has not been ea 




































: ce any i Na ne ies sve come to eRe 
with false pretenders to Immortality we must 
return to it. Were the definition complete as 
it stands, it might, with the permission of the 
~ psycho- physiologist, guarantee the Immortality 
_ of every living thing. In the dog, for instance, 
the material framework giving way at death 
might leave the released canine spirit still free 
to inhabit the old Environment. And so with 
every creature which had ever established 
a conscious relation with surrounding things. 
Now the difficulty in framing a theory of 
) scatharvial Life has been to construct one which 
will exclude the brute creation, drawing the 
- line rigidly at. man, or at least somewhere 
within the human race. Not that we need ob- 
_ ject to the Immortality of the dog, or of the 
‘whole inferior creation. Nor that we need 
» refuse a place to any intelligible speculation 
which would people the ear th to- day with the 
invisible forms of all things that have ever 
lived. Only we still insist that this is not 
Eternal Life. And why? Because their En- 
vironment is not Eternal. Their correspond- 
ence, however firmly established, is established 
with that which shall pass away. An Eternal 
- Life demands an Eternal Environment. 
The demand for a perfect Environment as 
vell as for a perfect correspondence is less 
elear in Mr. Herbert Spencer’s definition than 
night be. But it is an essential factor. An 
anism might remain true to its Environ- 
hut what if the Environment nae it 























to change, it could ae itself to successive 
ehanges in the Environment. And if this were 
guaranteed we should also have the conditions 
for Eternal Life fulfilled. But what if the 
Environment passed away altogether? What 
if the earth swept suddenly into the sun? 
This is a change of Environment: against 
which there could be no precaution and for 
which there could be as little provision. 
With a changing Environment even, there — 
must always remain the dread and possibility 
of a falling out of correspondence. At the 
best, Life would be uncertain, But with a — 
changeless Environment—such as that pos- — 
sessed by the spiritual organism—the pers 
petuity of the correspondence, so far as the 
external relation is concerned, is guaranteed, 
This quality cf permanence in the Environment 
distinguishes the religious relation from every 
other. Why should not the musician’s life be 
an Eternal Life? Because, for one thing, the 
musical world, the Environment with which 
he corresponds, is not eternal. Even if his 
correspondence in itself could Jast eternally, 
the environing material things with which he 
corresponds must pass away. His soul might 
last forever—but not his violin. So the man 
of the world might last forever—but not the 
world. His Environment is not eternal; nor 
are even his co rrespondences—the world 
passeth awcy and *he lust thereof. 

We find then tha_ man, or the spiritual man, 
is equipped with «w> set of correspondences. 








_s ETERNAL LIFE. 245 


- Oneset possesses the quality of everlastingness, 
_ the other is temporal. But unless these are 
_ separated by some means the temporal will 
_ eontinue to impair and hinder the eternal. 
_ he final preparation, therefore, for the ia- 
_ heriting of Eternal Life must consist in the 
* abandonment of the non-eternal elements. 
These must be unloosed and dissociated from 
the higher e!2ments. And this is effected by 
a closing catastrophe—Death. 

Death ensues because certain relations in 
_ the organism are not adjusted to certain 
an relations in the Environment. There will 
_ come a time in each history when the imper- 
_ fect correspondences of the organism will 
betray themselves by a failure to compass 
some necessary adjustment. This is why 
Death is associated with Imperfection. Death 
_ is the necessary result of Imperfection, and 
_ thenecessary end ofit. Imperfect correspond- 
_ ence zives imperfect and uncertain Life. 
“Perfect correspondence,” on the other hand, 
according to Mr, Herbet Spencer, would be 
_ perfect Life.’ To abolish Death, therefore, 
_ all that would be necessary would be to abol- 
ish Imperfection. But it is the claim of Chris- 
_ tianity that it can abolish Death. And it is 
significant to notice that it does so by meeting 
_ this very demand of Science—it abolishes Im- 
=e 
_. The part of the organism which begins to 

- get out of correspondence with the Organio 
Beeioicrent | is the only part which is in vital 
Ba senence with it. Though a fatal dis- 

































advantage to the natural man to’ 
out of corr espondence with this Envi 
it is of inestimable importance to th 
man. ’For’so long as it is maintained t 
is barred for a further Evolution. And hence 
the condition necessary for the further Evolu. 
tion is that the spiritual be released from the 
natural. That is to say, the condition of 
further Evolution is Death. ors 
Vite, therefore, becomes a scientific for 
Death, being the final sifting of all the co 
spondences, ; is the indispensable factor 0 
higher Life. In the language of Science, 
less than of Scripture, “'To die is gain.” 

The sifting of tl: correspondences is done by 
Nature. This is its last and greatest contri- 
bution to mankind. Over the mouth of the 
grave the perfect and the imperfect submit to | 
their final separation. Each goes to its own 
—earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, — 
Spirit to Spirit. “The dust shall return’ tothe — 
earth as it was; and the Spirit shall xia 
unto God who gave it.” 



























“When I talked with an a 
pointed out to him that his er 
my experience hs replied: ‘I 






‘Other world! There is no. 
and omnipresent; here or no 
; fact.” f 












ENVIRONMENT. 


7 
* Ye are complete in Him.” —Pawl. 


«« Whatever amount of power an organism expends in 
any shape is the correlate and equivalent of a power 
that was taken into it from without.’’—Herbert Spen- 
cer. 


SrupEnts of Biography will observe that in 
all well-written Lives attention is concentrated 
for the first few chapters upon two points. 
- Weare first introduced to the family to which 
the subject of memoir belonged. The grand- 
parents, or even the more remote ancestors 
‘are briefly sketched and their chief character. — 


s istics brought prominently into view. Then 
_ the parents themselves are photographed in 


Py 


it 










_ detail. Their appearance and physique, their © 

character, their disposition, their mental qual. 
ities, are set before us in a critical analysis, ~ 
And finally we are asked to observe how much 
_ the father and the mother respectively have 
_ transmitted of their peculiar nature to their 
_ offspring. How faithfully the ancestral lines 
have met in the latest product, how mysteri- 
ously the joint characteristics of body and 
mind have blended, and how unexpected yet 
~ how entirely natural a recombination is the re- 
sult—these points are elaborated with cumnula- 
tive effect until we realize at last how little we 

















These also we are assured have playe ty 






are dealing with an independent : ' ne 
with a survival and reorzanizatio | of 
seemed buried in the grave. ; “ 
In the second place, we are invited i 
sider more’ external influences—schooks 










cumstances, scenery y, and, by and by, th 
ious and political atmosphere vot the time. 





part in making the individual what he is. 
can estimate these early influences in any 8 
ticular case with but small imagination if 
fail to see how powerfully they also haye 
moulded mind and character, and in what 
subtle ways they have determined the: ign 
of the future life. . 

This twofold relation of the individual, first, . 
to his parents, and second, tohis circumstances, 
is not peculiar to human beings. These two 
factors are responsible for making all pein . 
organisms what they are. When a naturalis 
attempts to unfold the life-history of any ani. 
mal, he proceeds precisely on these Same lines. — 
Biography i is really a branch of Natural His- — 
tory; and the. biographer who discusses his 
hero as the resultant of these two tendencies, 
follows the scientific method as rigidly as Mr. 
Darwin in studying | « Animals and Plants 4 
under Domestication.” 

Mr. Darwin, following Weisiafn lone ago 
pointed out that there are two main. factors 
all Evolution—the nature of the organism an 
the nature of the conditions. We haye ¢ 
our illustration from the highest or hu 

















































order to. deine Hh meaning of these — 
rs in the. clearest way; but it must be re- 
“Gpaaaean that the development of man under, 
these directive influences is essentially the 
same as that of any other organism in the | 
hands of Nature. We are dealing therefore 
ith universal Law. It willstill further serve 
to complete the conception of the general prin- 
iple if we now substitute for the ‘casual 
phrases by which the factors have been de- 
“seribed the more accurate terminology of 
‘Science. Thus what Biogtaphy describes as 
parental influences, Biology would speak of as. 
» Her dity; and all that is involved in the 
ond factor—the action of external cireum- 
ances and surroundings—the ‘naturalist 
would include under the single term Environ- 
ifienit, These two, Her edity : and Environment, 
e the master- influences of the or ganic w orld. 
‘hese have madeall of us what we are. These 
ces are still ceaselessly playing upon all our %. 
lives. And he who truly understands these = 
fluences ; i he who has decided how much to 






























aa they arise, ‘or adjust them to the old, so di. 
recting them as at one moment to make them 
_ eo-operate, at another to counteract one an- 
other, understartds the rationale of personal 
development. To seize continuously the op- 
Postarity | of more and more perfect adjust- 





some inward evil with some purer in- 
e acting from without, in a word to make | 
Environment at the same time that it is 











, missing the road. Living in the spiritual 





252 


making us,—these are the secrets 
ordered and successful life. nye 
In the spiritual world, also, the sabide aa ated 
ences which form and transform the soul are fh 
Heredity and Environment. And here espe-— 
cially where all is invisible, where much that — 
we feel to be real is yet so ill-defined, it be- 
comes of vital practical moment to clarity ihe*. 
atmosphere «is far as possible with conceptions - ne 
borrowed from the natural life. Few things — ie. 
are less understood than the conditions of the 
spiritual life. The distressing incompetence — 
of which most of us are conscious in trying to, 
work out our spiritual experience is due pel. — 
haps less to the diseased will which we com- — 
monly blame for it than to imperfect knowl- — 
edge of the right conditions. It does not 
occur to us how natural the spiritual is. We 
still strive for somestrange transcendent thing; 
we seek to promote life by methods as un-— 
natural as they prove unsuccessful; and only 
the utter incomprehensibility of the whole 
region prevents us seeing fully—what we 
already half suspect—how completely we are 


















world, ‘nevertheless, i is just as simple as living 
in the natural wor id; and it is the same kind — 
of simplicity. It is the same ,kind of simplic- 
ity for it is the same kind of world—there are 
not two kinds of worlds. The conditions of _ 
life in the one are the conditions of life in the © 
other. And till these conditions are sensibly 
grasped, asthe conditions of all life, if Is im- 
possible that the personal effort after the high- 





ENVIRONMENT. 


i eee life should be other than a blind struggle 
carried on in fruitless sorrow and humilia- 

‘i Of these two universal factors, Heredity and 
_ Environment, it is unnecessary to balance the 
a relative importance here. The main influence, 
4 unquestionably, must be assigned tothe former. 
Jn practice, however, and for an obvious rea son, 
we are chiefly concerned with the latter. What 

: Heredity has to dofor us is determined outside 
% ourselves. No man can select his own parents. 
' But every man to some extent can choose his 
y own Environment. [is relation to it, however 
largely determined by Heredity in the first in- 
4 stance, is always open to alteration. And so 
‘great is his control over Environment and so 
_ radical its. influence over him, that he can so 
» direct it as either to undo, mnedify, perpetuate 
_ or intensify the earlier her editary influences 
) within certain limits. But the aspects of 
- Environment which we haye now to consider 
_ «lo not involve us in questions cf such com- 
plexity. In what high and mystical sense, also, 

_ Heredity applies to ‘the spiritual organism we 
‘need not just now inquire. In the simpler re- 
» lations of the more external factor we shall find 

a large and fruitful field for study. 

The Influence of Environment may be inves- 
ted in two main aspects. First, one night 
iscuss the modern and very interesting ques- 
= tion as to the power of Environment to induce 
what i is known.to recent science as Variation. 
change in the surroundings of any animal, itis 
well-known, ean so react upon it as to cause 






















ti 
















254 ENVIRONMENT, — 


it to change. By the attempt, conscious 

unconscious, to adjust itself to the new condi-— 
tions, a true physiological change 1s gradually 
wrought within the organism. Hunter, for ex-— 
ample, in a classical experiment, so chan the 
Environment of a sea-gull by keeping it m cap- — 
tivity that it could only securea diet. 
The effect was to modify the stomach of the — 
bird, normally adapted to.a fish diet, antil in 
time it came to resemble in structure the gizzard 
of an ordinary grain-feeder such as the’ pigeon, — 
Holmgrén again reversed this experimené by 
feeding pigeons for a lengthened period on a 
meat-diet, with the result that the eizzard be- 
came transformed into the carnivorous stom. 
ach. Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace mentions the 
ease of a Brazilian parrot which changes its 
color from green to red or yellow when fed on 
the fat of certain fishes. Not only changes of 
food, however, but changes of climate and of 
temperature, changes in surrounding organ- 
isms, in the case of marine animals even changes 
of pressure, of ocean currents, of light, and 
many other circumstances, are known to exert 
a powerful modifying influence upon living 
organisms. These relations are still bemg 
worked out in many directions, but the influ- 
ence of Environment asa prime factor in Vari- 
ation is now a recognized doctrine of science.* 









1Vide Karl Semper’s ‘* The Natural Conditions of Ex- 
istence as they affect Animal Life ;’’ Wallace’s ‘* Trop- — 
ical Nature ; ? Weismann’s ‘‘ Studies in the Theory of 
Descent ;” Darwin’s ‘‘Animals and Plants under Domes- 
tication.” rig 


prs 





- ENVI IR ONMEN is 


‘Even the Se duiar mind has been struck with 
he curious adaptation of nearly all animals to 
heir habitat, for example in the matter of 
-eolor. The sandy hue of the sole and floun- 
er, the white of the polar bear with its sug- 
stion of Arctic snows, the stripes of the Bengal 
ger—as if the actual reeds of its native jungle 
had nature-printed themselves on its hide;— 
these and a hundred others which will occur to 
very one, are marked instances of adaptation te 
Environment, induced by Natural Selection or 
therwise, for the purpose, obviously in these 
ses at least, of protection. 
To continue the investigation of the modify. 
ing action of Environment into the moral an¢ 
_ spiritual spheres, would be to open a fascinat- 
ing and suggestive inquiry. Once might show 
how the moral man is acted upon and changed 
continuously by the influences, secret and open, 
of his surroundings, by the tone of society, by 
‘the company he keeps, by his occupation, by 
the books he reads, by Nature, by all, in short, 
that constitutes the habitual atmosphere of his 
_ thoughts and the little world of his daily choice. 
Or one might go deeper still and prove how the 
' spiritual life also is modified from outside 
 sources—its health or disease, its growth or de- 
vy, all its changes for better or for worse being 
termined by the varying and successive Cir- 
umstances in which the religious habits are 
nen But we must rather transfer our 
































“ 


ame 3 , = : 
Ge RE ay ne ees ame oem OS a LAE RT CE ERT wg 


a eee. 











*) ing life itself. 

























256. ENVIRONMEN? 
So much of the modern discussi 
ronment revolves round the mere question 

Variation that one is apt to overlook a pi 
question. Environment as a factor in life i 
exhausted when we have realized its modi 
influence. Its significance is scarcely touc. 
The great function of Environment is not to 
modify but to swstain. In sustaining life, itis 
true, it modifies. Bit 1e )\tter Influence igs 
incidental, the former essential. Our Environ. 
ment is that in which we live and .aove and ~ 
have oufbeing. Watnout it we should neither 
live nor move nor have any being. Ina‘the or- 
’ ganism lies the priuciple of lifes; in the Envi- 
ronment are the conditions of life. “Vithout the 
fulfilment of these conditions, which are wholly - 
supplied by Environment, there can be no life, 
An organism in ‘tself is but « part: Nature is © 
its comrlement. «lone, cus ff from its sur 
roundings, it is not. Alone, cut off from my ~ 
surroundin~s, Iam not—physically, lam not. | 
Tam, onl: as I am sustained. I continue only 
asl receive. My Environment may modify me, 
but it-has fir:t to keep me. And all the time 
its secret transiorming power is indirectly 
moulding body und mind it: is directly active 
‘in the mre open task of ministering to my 
myriad wants and from hour to hour sustain- 


To understand the sustaining influence of 
Environment in the animal world, one hasonly — 
to recall what the’ biologist terms the extrinsic. 
or subsidiary\ conditions of vitality. Every 
living thing normally requires for its develop- 


re 





WME LON MMN'T a 






& ve ‘Environment, containing air, light, 
heat, and water. In addition to these, if vital 
ity is to be prolonged for any length oftime, 
nd if it is to be accompanied with growth and 









Bast supply of food. When we remember how 
ndispensable food is to growth and work, and 
“when we further bear in mind that the food- 
‘supply is solely contributed by the Environ- 
ment, we shall realize at once the meaning and 








ent. at least of the human a is made of — 
ure water, the rest of gasesand earths. These 
-bave all come from Environment. Through 
_ the secret pores of the skin two pounds of 
_ water are exhaled daily from every healthy 
a adult. The supply is kept up by Environ- 
nent. The Environment is really an unappro- 
iated part of ourselves. Definite portions | 
are continuously abstracted from it and added 
he organism. And so long asthe organism 
oritinues to grow,.act, think, speak, work, or 
erform any other function demanding a supply 
f energy, there is a constant simultaneous, and 
roportionate drain upon its surroundings. 
This is a truth in the physical, and therefore 
n the spiritual, world of so great importance 
hat we shall not mis-spend time if we follow 
for further confirmation, into another de- 
mentofnature. Its significance in Biology 
1f-evident ; let us appeal to Chemistry. 
Vhena piece of coal is thrown on the fire, — 
y that it will radiate into the room a cer- 



















425 


S 








ee 


Pn Pte te eee 
; 5 gs 








258 _ EN VIRONMENT. 


tain quantity of heat. This heat, in’ 
lar conception, is supposed to reside in’ 
and to be set free during the process of com- 
bustion. In reality, however, the heat energy ~ 
is only in part contained in the coal. It ia 
contained just as truly in the coal’s Environ- ~ 
ment—that is to say, in the oxygen of the air, 
The atoms of carbon which compose the coat 
have a powerful affinity for the oxygen of the 
air, Whenever they are made to approach” 
within a certain distance of one another, by the 
initial application of heat, they rush together 
with inconceivable velocity. The heat which 
appears at this moment, comes neither from 
the carbon alone, nor from the oxygen alone, — 
These two substances are really inconsumable, — 
and continue to exist, after they meetin a com- 


‘bined form, as carbonic acid gas. The heat is — 


due to the energy developed by the chemical 
embrace, the precipitate rushing together of the — 


-molecules of carbon and the molecules of oxy- 


gen. It comes, therefore, partly from the coal 
and partly from the Environment. Coal alone 
never could produce heat, neither alone could 
Environment. The two are mutually depend- 
ent. And although in nearly all the arts we 
credit everything to the substance which we 
can weigh and handle, it is certain that in most 
cases the larger debt is due to an invisible En- 
vironment. reat 
This is one of those great commonplaces 
which slip eut of general reckoning by reason 
of their very largeness and simplicity. How 
profound, nevertheless, are the issues which 
4 ee 









? 


oS 

4 hang on“this elementary truth, we sha‘l dis- 
cover immediately. Nothing in this age is 
> more needed in every department of knowl- 
edge than the rejuvenescence of the common- 
- place. In the spiritual world especially, he 
will be wise who courts acquaintance with the 
most ordinary and transparent facts of Nature; 
and in laying the foundations for a religious 
life he will make no unworthy beginning who 
earries with him an impressive sense of so 
obvious a truth as that without Environment 
there can be no life. 

For what does this amount to in the spirit- 
ual world? Is it not merely the scientific re- 
statement of the reiterated aphorism of Christ, 
“Without Me ye can do nothing”? There is 
in the spiritual organism a principle of life; 
but that is not self-existent. It requires a 
second factor, a something in which to live 
and move and have its being, an Environment. 
* Without this it cannot live or move or have 
any being. Without Environment the soul 
is-as the carbon without the oxygen, as the 
fish without the water, as the animal frame 
without the extrinsic conditions of vitality. 

And what is the spiritual Environment? It 
is God. Without this, therefore, there is no 
life, no thought, no energy, nothing—“ without 
Me ye can do nothing.” 

The cardinal error in the religious life is 


< 


ee oy ge 
ages 


Spiritual experience occupies itself, not too 
much, but too exclusively, with one factor— 
_thesoul. We delight in dissecting this much 









ENVIRONMENT. 258 


- ae 


to attempt to live without an Environment... 


“ 
 ' 












eee Ts ait Ie Oh Tah 


~ 260 


tortured faculty, from time i time, 
of a certain something which we eall our 
—forgetting that faith is but an attitu 
empty hand for grasping an environing I 
ence. And when we feel the need of a 
by which to overcome the world, sie u 
do’ we not seek to generate it within our- 
selves by some forced process, some fresh gird-— ‘ts 
ing of the will, some strained activity w hich 
only leaves the soul in further exhaustion? — 
To examine ourselves is good; but useless un- 
less we also examine Environment, To bewail — 
our weakness is right, but not remedial. The 
cause must be investigated as well as the 
sult. And yet, because we never see the Ghats 0 
half of the problem, our failures even fail to 
instruct us. After each new collapse we : 
our life anew, but on the old conditions 5 and. 
the attempt ends as usual in the repetition — or 
‘in the circumstances the inevitable repetition — 
—of the old disaster. Not that at times we 
do not obtain glimpses of the true state of the 
ease. After seasons of much discouragement, 
with the sore sense upon us of our abject 
feebleness, we do confer with ourselves, insist- 
ing for the thousandth time, “My soul, wait 
thou only upon God.” But, the lesson is soon 
forgotten. The strength supplied we speedily 
e eredit to our own achievement; and even the 
fh temporary success is mistaken for a symptom 
- of improved inward vitality. Once more we 
become self-existent. Once more we go on liy- 
ing without an Environment. And once more, 
after days of wasting without repayane ae 


ay 














- spending without becreaten ines we begin to — 
perish with hunger, only returning to God 
again, as a last resort, when we have reached 
starvation point. 
is Now why do we do this? Why do we seek 
to breathe without an atmosphere, to drink 
_ without a well? Why this unscientific at- 
_ tempt to sustain life for weeks at a time with- 
out an Environment? It is because we have 
never truly seen the necessity for an Environ- 
ment. We have not been working with a 
feet principle. We are told to “wait only upon 
God,” but we do not know why. It has never 
been as clear to us that without God the soul 
will die as that without food the body will 
perish. Inshort, we have never comprehended 
the doctrine of the Persistence of Force. In- 
» stead of being content to transform energy we 
have tried to create it. 
. The Law of Nature here is as clear as Sci- ~ 
~ ence can make it. In the words of Mr. Her- 
~ bert Spencer, “It is a corollary from that 
_ primordial truth which, as we have seen, — 
underlies all other truths, that whatever 
amount of power an organism expends in any 
shape is the correlate and equivalent of a 
_ power that was taken into it from without.” ? 
_ Weare dealing here with a simple question of 
dynamics. Whatever energy the soul expends 
must first be “taken into it from without.” 
_ Weare not Creators, but creatures; God is our 
refuge and strength. Communion with God, 








£ 






't“*Principles of Biology,” p. 57. 








. struggling in the wreck of its religious 


"ple like this, broad as the universe, solid as 













262 ENVIRONMENT, 


therefore, is a scientific necessity ; 
will more help the defeated’ spir 


than a common-sense hold of this plain bit 
logical principle that without Enviroument he 
ean do nothing. What he wants is not an 
occasional view, but a principle—a basal princi- 


nature. In the natural world we act upon this — 


_ law unconsciously. We absorb heat, breathe 


air, draw on Environment all but sutomatically 

for meat and drink, for the nourishment of the — k : 
senses, for mental stimulus, for all that, pene- — 
trating us from without, can prolong, enrich, — 


and elevate life. But in the spiritual world wa’ 


have all this to learn. We are new creatures, 

and even the bare living has to be acquired. 
Now the great point in learning to live is to — 

live naturally. As closely as possible we must — 


_ follow the broad, clear lines of the natural life, 


And there are three things especially which it 

is necessary for us to keep continually in view. 
The first is that the organism contains within 
itself only one-half of what is essential to life; 
the second is that the other half is contained = 
in the Environment; the third, that the condi- 
tion of receptivity is simple union between the 
organism and the Environment. 

‘Translated into the language of religion 
these propositions yield, and place ona scienti- 
fic basis, truths of immense practical interest. 
To say, first, that the organism contains 
within itself only one-half of what is essential 
to life, is to reper te evangelical confession, — 








ENVIRONMENT. — Bar 


30° worn ne yet so true to universal experi- in 
ence, of the utter helplessness of man. Who 
has not come to the conclusion that he is buta — 
part, a fraction of some larger whole? Who 
does not miss at every turn of his life an ab? 
sent God? That man is but a part, he knows, 
‘ for there is room in him or more. That God 
is the other part, he feels, because at times He 
* _ gatisfies his need. Who does not tremble often 
; under that sicklier symptom of his incom- 
_ pleteness, his want of spiritual energy, his 
helplessness with sin? But now he “ander- 
stands both—the void in his life, the power- 
~ Jessness of his will. He understands that, 
nm like all other energy, spiritual power is con- 
_ tained in Environment. He finds here af last 
the true root of-all human frailty, emptiness, 

— nothingness, sin. This is why “without Me 
ye can do nothing.” Powerlessness is the 
normal state not only of this but of every _ 
. -organism—of every organism apart from ite. 
Environment. ce 

The entire dependence of the soul upon God 

is not an exceptional mystery, nor is man’s 
helplessness an arbitrary and unprecedented 
phenomenon. It is the law of all Nature. 
The spiritual man is not taxed beyond the 
. natural. He is not purposely handicapped by) 
singular limitations or unusual ineapacities. — 
God has not designedly made the religious life — 
as hard as possible. The arrangements for A, 
the spirituat life are the same as for the | 
' natural life. When in their hours of unbelief — “We 
men challenge their Creator for placing the 








— 





264 | ENVIRONMENT. 


obstacle of human frailty in the” thei 
highest development, their protest is against — 
the order of nature. They object to the sun 
for being the source of energy and not the en- 
gine, to the carbonic acid being in the air and — 
not in the plant. They would equip each 
organism with a personal atmosphere, each 
brain with a private store of energy; they ~ 


would grow corn in the interior of the body, 


and make bread by a special_apparatus in the 
digestive organs. "They must, in short, have 
the creature transformed into a Creator. The 
organism must either depend on his enyviron- 
ment, or be self-sufficient. But who will not 
rather upprove the arrangement by which 
man in his creatural life may have unbroken — 
access to an Infinite Power? What soul will 
seek to remain self-luminous when it knows 
that “The Lord God is a Sun”? Who will 
not willingly exchange his shallow vessel for 
Christ’s well of living water? Even if the 
organism,-launched into being like a ship put- 
ting out to sea, possessed a full equipment, its 
little store must soon come to an end. But in 
contact with a large and bounteous Environ- 
ment its supply is limitless. In every diree- 
tion its resources are infinite. 

There is a modern school whieh protests 
against the doctrine of man’s inability as the 
heartless fiction of a past theology. While 
some forms of that dogma, to any one who 
knows man, are incapable of defence, there are 
others which, to any one who knows Nature, 
are incapable of denial. Those who oppose 



















EN VIRONMENT. 


organism with the properties of Environment.. 
All true theology, on the other hand, has re-- 


mained loyal to at least the root-idea in. this 


truth. The New Testament is nowhere more 
impressive than where it insists on the fact of 
man’s dependence. In its view the first step 


in religion is for man to feel his helplessness. 


Christ’s first beatitude is to-the poor in spirit. 
The condition of entrance into the spiritual — 
kingdom is to possess the child-spirit—that 


state of mind combining at once the profoundest 


helpiessness with the most artless feeling of — 
dependence. Substantially the same idea 
underlies the countless passages in which © 
Christ affirms that He has not come to ¢all the 
righteous, but sinners to repentance, And in 


“that farewell discourse into which the Great 


Teacher poured the most burning convictions: 
of His life, He gives to this doctrine an ever 
increasing emphasis. No words could be more 
solemn or arresting than the sentence in the 
last great allegory devoted to this theme, “ As 


the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it — 


abide in the vine, no more can ye except ye 
abide in Me.” The word here, it will be 
observed again, is cannot. It is the imperative- 
of natural law. Fruit-bearing without Christ 
is not an improbability, but an impossibility. — 
As well expect the natural fruit to flourish with- 


out air and heat, without soil and sunshine. 
‘How thoroughly also Paul grasped this truth 


is apparent from a hundred pregnant passages 


an _ in which he echoes his Master’s teaching. To. 





it, in their jealousy for humanity, credit ne Om 





266 


‘ ‘him life was hid with Christ in God 
_ he embraced this not as a theory 
~perimental truth we gather from his ene bi 
» eonfession, “ When I am weak, then am I ~ 
|) strong.” Wiis blenny 
one This leads by a natural transition to the 
- second of the three points we are seekin id 
illustrate. We have seen that the orgar 
contains within itself only one half of what i s, 
essential to life. We have next to observe, as Ho 
_ the complement of this, how the second _ 18) 

Hy eontained.in the Environment. 

One result of the due apprehension of our 
personal helplessness will be that we shallno 
longer waste our time over the impossible task 
-of manufacturing energy for ourselves. Our 
‘science will bring to an abrupt end the long 
‘Series of severe experiments in which we have 
andulged in the hope of finding a perpetual 
“motion. And having decided upon this onee 
for all, our first step in seeking a more satis. - 
factory state of things must be to find a new 
source of energy. Following Nature, only one 
<ourse is open to us. We must refer to 
Environment. The natural life owes all to 
Environment, so must the spiritual. Now 
tthe Environment of the spiritual life is God. 

As Nature therefore forms the complement of — 
the natural life, God is the complement of the 
‘Spiritual. 

The proof of this? That Nature is not more 
natural to my body than God is to my soul. 
Every animal and plant has its own Environ- — 
_wment, And the further one inquires into the — 
















O, ne aa. 5 
ORE Saran 








oe eel 


ENVIRONMENT. — 








relations of the one to the other, the more one” 
sees the marvellous intricacy and beauty of — 
_ the adjustments. These wonderful adapta- — 
- tions of each organism to its surroundings—of = 
- the fish to the water, of the eagle to the air, of © 
the insect to the forest-bed; and of each part _ 
of every organism—the fish’s swim-bladder, the — 
-_ eagie’s eye, the insect’s breathing tubes—which 
- * the oldargument from design brought home to ~ 
us with such enthusiasm, inspire us still witha 
sense of the boundless resource and skill of 
Nature in perfecting her arrangements for each | 
single life. Down to the last detail the world — 
is made for what is in it; and by whatever — 
_ process things are as they are, all organisms 
find in surrounding Nature the ample comple- __ 
ment of themselves. Man, too, finds in his 
Environment provision for all capacities, scope 
for the exercise of every faculty, room for the — 
indulgence of each appetite, a just supply for — 
every want. So the spiritual man at the apex — 
of the pyramid of life finds in the vaster range — 
of his Environment a provision, as much — 
higher, it is true, as he is higher, but as del- 
icately adjusted to his varying needs. And 
all this is supplied to him just as the lower 
organisms are ministered to by the lower en- 
vironment, in the same simple ways, in th 
same constant sequence, as appropriately an 
as lavishly. We fail to praise the ceaseless 
ministry of the great inanimate world arouné 
us only because its kindness is unobirusive. |. 
_ Nature is always noiseless. All her greatest ‘s 
by: gifts are given in secret. “And we forget how _ 


le 


if 





















ENVIRONM. Te T. 


truly every good and perfect gif con 
without, and from above, because no Pp 


her changeless beneficence teaches us th sad ed 
“lessons of deprivation. y 


itis not a strange thing, then, for the tiga: 
to find its life in God. This is its native air. 
God as the Environment of the soul has been — 
from the remotest age the doctrine of all the 
deepest thinkers in religion. How profouudly 
Hebrew poetry is saturated with this high 







thought will appear when we try to conceive — a 
of it with this left out. True poetry is only — 


science in another form, And long before it was — 
possible for religion to give scientific expression — 
to iis greatest “truths, men of insight uttered 


+hemselves in psalms which could not have been 


truer to Nature had the most modern light con- ~ 


trolied the inspiration. “As the hart panteth — 
after the water-brooks, so panteth my soul 


after Thee, O God.” What fine sense of the 


analogy of the natural and the spiritual does 
mot underlie these words! As the hart after 
its Environment, so man after his; as the 
water-brooks are fitly designed to meet the 
watural wants, so fitly does God implement the 


spiritual need of man. It will be noticed that 


in the Hebrew poets the lenging for God never 
strikes one as morbid, or unnatural to the men 
who uttered it. It is as natural to them to 
long for God as for the swallow to seek her . 
mest. Throughout all their images no suspi- 
eion rises within us that they are exaggerating. 


We feel how truly they are reading themselves, — 


their deepest selves. No false note occurs ine 



































all their aspiration. There is no weariness 

even in their ceaseless sighing, except the — 

_ lover’s weariness for the absent—if they would 

_- fly away, it is only to be at rest. Men who 

have no soul can only wonder at this. Men 

who have a soul, but with little faith, can only 
envy it. How joyous a thing it was to the » 

Hebrews to seek their God! How artlessly 

~ they call upon Him to entertain them in His _ 

pavilion, to cover them with His feathers, to 

- hide them in Ifis secret place, to hold them in 

_.the hollow of His hand or stretch around them 

_ the everlasting arms! These men were true, ~~ 

- children of Nature. As the humming-bird 

“among its own palm-trees, as the ephemera in 
the sunshine of a summer evening, so they 
‘ived their joyous lives. And even the full 
share of the sadder experiences of life which» 

- came to all of them but drove them the further 
into the Secret Place, and led them with more — 
consecration to make, as they expressed it, — 
“the Lord their portion.” Allthat has beem — 
said since from Marcus Aureliusto Swedenborg, 
from Augustine to Schleiermacher of a beset- ae B 
ting God as the final complement of humanity 
is but a repetition of the Hebrew poet’s faith. 

_ And even the New Testament has nothing ~ 

_ higher to offer man than this. The psalmist’s 

“God is our refuge and strength” is only the — 

- earlier form, less defined, less practicable, but 

-. not less noble, of Christ’s “Come unto Me,and _ 
I will give you rest.” 

_~ There is a brief phrase of Paul’s which de. _ 

_ fines the relation with almost scientific accu- — 


atte) “* \" 











270 ENVIRONMEN 


racy,—“ Ye are complete in Him.” I 


summed up the whole of the Bible anthropology os? 
_—the completeness of man in God, his incom- 


pleteness apart from God. | 

If it be asked, in what is man ineomplete, or, 
In what does God complete him? the question 
is a wide-one. But it may serve to show at 
least the direction in which the Divine En- 
vironment forms the complement of human 
life if we ask ourselves once more what it is 
in life that needs complementing, And to this 
question we receive the significant answer that 
itis in the higher depar tments alone, or mainly, 
that the incompleteness of our life appears. 
The lower departments of Nature are already 
complete enough. The world itself is about as 
good a world as might be. It has been long in 
the making, its furniture is all in, its laws are 
in perfect worsxing order; and although wise 
men at various times have suggested improve- 
ments, there is on the whole a’ tolerably 
unanimous vote of confidence in things as they 
exist. The Divine Environment has little 
more to do for this planet so far as we can see, 
and so far as the existing generation is con- 
cerned. Then the lower organic life of the 
world is also so far complete. God, through 
Evolution or otherwise, may still have finish- 
ing touches to add here and there, but, already 
it is ‘‘all very good.” It is difficult to con- 
ceive anything better of its kind than a lily or 


a cedar, an ant or an ant-eater. These organ- 


isms, so far as we can judge, lack nothing. If 
might be said of them, “they are complete in 











ENVIRONMENT. gt 














Nature.” Of man also, ‘of man the animal, ree 
may be affirmed that his Environment satisfies 
him. He has food and drink, and good food — 
and good drink. And there is in him no purely 
‘animal want which is not really provided for, 
‘and that apparently in the happiest possible 
way. 
But the moment we pass beyond the mere 
animal life we begin to come upon an incom- 
pleteness. The symptoms at first are slight, 
and betray themselves only by an unexplained _ 
restlessness or a dull sense of want. Then the 
feverishness increases, becomes more defined, © 
and passes slowly into abiding pain. To some — 
come darker moments when the unrest deepens 
into a mental agony of which all the other 
woes of earth are mockeries—moments whem 
the forsaken soul can only cry in terror for the 
Living God. Up toa point the natural En- 
vironment supplies man’s wants, beyond that — 
it only derides him. How much in man lies 
‘beyond that point? Very much—almost all, 
all that makes man man. The first suspicion i 
of the terrible truth—so for the time let us 
_ call it—wakens with the dawn of the intel- 
lectual life. It isa solemn moment when the 
slow-moving mind reaches at length the verge 
of its mental horizon, and, looking over, sees — 
nothing more. Its straining makes the abyss — 
but more profound. Its ery comes back with- 
out an echo. Where is the Environment te 
‘complete this rational soul? Men either find 
one,— One—or spend the rest of their days in 
trying to shut their-eyes. The alternatives of 








272 ENVIRONMEN 


the intellectual life are Christianity or Ag- 
nosticism. The Agnostic is right when he 
trumpets his incompleteness. -He who is not 
complete in Him must forever incomplete, 
Still more grave becomes man’s case when he 
_ begins further to explore his moral and social 
nature. The problems of the heart and con. 
science are infinitely more perplexing than 
those of the intellect. Has love no future? 
Has right notriumph? Is the unfinished self 
to remain unfinished? Again the alternatives 
are two, Christianity or Pessimism. But when — 
we ascend the further height of the religious na- ~ 
ture, thecrisis comes. There, without Enyiron - 
ment, the darkness is unutterable. So madden. 
ing now becomes the mystery that men are com- 
pelled to construct cn Environment for them- 
selves. No Environment here is unthinkable. 
An altar of some sort men must haye—God, or 
Nature, or Law. Butthe anguish of Atheism 
is only a negative proof of man’s incomplete, 
ness. A witness more overwhelming is the 
prayer of the Christian. What a very strange 
thing, is it not, for man to pray? It is the 
symbol at once of his littleness and of his 
greatness. Here the sense of imperfection, 
controlled and silenced in the narrower reaches: 
of his being, becomes audible. Now he must 
utter himself. The sense of need is so real, 
and the sense of Environment, that he calls out 
to it, addressing it articulately, and imploring 
it to satisfy his need. Surely there is nothing 
more touching in Nature than this? Man 
could never so expose himself, so break through - 













all constraint, except froma dire necessity. It 
is the suddenness and unpremeditatedness of 
Prayer that gives it a unique value as an 


apologetic. 


Man has three questions to put to his En- 
vironment, three Symbols of his incomplete- 
ness. They come from three different centres 
of his being. The first is the question of the 
intellect, What is Truth? The natural En- 
vironment answers, “Increase of Knowledge 
increaseth Sorrow,” and “much study is a 
Weariness.” Christ replies, “ Learn of Me, and 
ye shall find Rest.” Contrast the world’s. 
word “ Weariness ” with Christ’s word “ Rest.” 
No other teacher since the world began has 
ever associated “learn” with “ Rest.” Learn 
of me, says the philosopher, and you shall find 
Restlessness. Learn of Me, says Christ, and 
ye shall find Rest. Thought, which the god-: 
less man has cursed, that eternally starved yet 
ever living spectre, finds at last its imperish- 
able glory ; Thought iscomplete in Him. The 
_ second question is sent up from the moral 


nature, Who will show us any good? And 4 


again we have a contrast: the world’s verdict, 
“ There is none that doeth good, no, not one;” 
and Christ’s, “There is none good but God 
only.” And, finally, there is the lonely cry 
of the spirit, most pathetic and most deep of 
all, Where is he whom my soul seeketh? 
And the yearning is met as before, “I looked 
- on my right hand, and beheld, but there was 
noman that would know me; refuge failed 


me; no man cared for my soul. Icried unto _ 


Bea ret 





274 


Thee, O Lord: I said, Thou art my re 
‘my portion in the land of the living. 
Are these the directions in whic 
these days are seeking to complete th ves ? 
~The completion of Life is just now a supreme 
a question. It is important to observe how it is 
being answered. If we ask Science or Phi- 
losophy they will refer us to Evolution. The ~ 
struggle for Life, they assure us, is steadily 
eliminating imperfect forms, and as the fittest 
continue to survive we shall haye a gradual 
perfecting of being. That is to say, that com- 
pleteness is to be sought for in the organism— 
we are to be complete in Nature and in our- 
selves. To Evolution, certainly, all men will 
look for a further perfecting of Life. But it 
must be an Evolution which includes all the 
factors. Civilization, it may be said, will deal 
with the second factor, It will improve the — 
Environment step by step as it improves the — 
organism, or the organism as it improves the 
Environment. This is well, and it will perfect 
pi Life up to a point. But beyond that it cannot 
oe carry us. As the possibilities of the natural 
Ks Life become more defined, its impossibilities 






tes 





7 oe a S 


% 


5 PI a er eer EY cies cig 
. : . 





will become the more appalling. The most 


hi perfect civilization would leave the best a 
xt) of us still incomplete. Men will'have to 
i up the experiment of attempting to live in alt 


Pit an Environment. Half an Environment will 
aye give but half a Life. Half an Environment? 
; He whose correspondences are with this world 


Psy exlii, 45.5: 





Pane ane 
Pe 





“alone has only a thousandth part, a fraction, 
the mere rim and shade of an Environment, 
_ and only thefraction of a Life. How long will 
it take Science to believe its own creed, that 
_ the material universe we see around us is only 
a fragment of the universe we donot see? The 
very retention of the phrase “ Material Uni- 
- verse,” we are told, is the confession of our 
- unbelief and ignorance; since “matter is the: 
_ less. important half of the material of the 
_ physical universe.” ? 
The thing to be aimed ‘at is not an or ganism 
self-contained and self-sufficient, however high 
_ inthe scale of being, but an organism complete 
- in the whole Environment. It is open to any 
one to aim at a self-sufficient Life, but he will 
find no encouragement in Nature. The Life 
of the body may complete itself in the physical 
world; that is its legitimate Environment. 
The Life of the senses, high and low, may 
perfect itself in Nature. Even the Life of 
thought may find a large complement in sur- 
rounding things. Butthe higher thought, and 
the conscience, and the religious Life, can only 
» perfect themselves in God. To make the in- 
fluence of Environment stop with the natural 
world is to doom the spiritual nature to death. 
For the soul, lilxc the body, can never perfect 
itself in isolation. The law for both is to be 
complete in the appropriate Environment. 
_ And the perfection to be sought in the spiritual 
f pt is a Beene of relation, a perfect 









The ‘** Unseen Universe,” 6th Ed. p. 100. 









ENVIRON M. 


adjustment of that which is becoming 
to that which is perfect. ; igi 

The third problem, now simplified to a coeved , 
finally presents itself. Where do 
and Environment meet? How does that which ; 
is becoming perfect avail itself of its perfecting 
Environment? And the answer is, just as in 
Nature. The condition is simply receptivity. 
And yet this is perhaps the least simple of 4 
conditions. It is so simple that we will not 
act upon it. But there is no other condition, 
Christ has condensed the whole truth into one — 
memorable sentence, “As the branch cannot ~ 
bear fruit of itself except it abide in the vine 
no more can ye except ye abide in Me.” An 
on the positive side, “ He that abideth in Me 
the same bringeth forth much fruit? 


bo 
—| 
i=) 























1 4B onveful of Gaeta 
From scarpéd cliff an 
She cries, ‘A thousans 

I care for nothing, all 


‘Thou makest thine ar 
I bring to life, I bring 1 
The spirit does but m 

I know no more,’ And 


Man, her last work, who 
Such splendid purpose iu 
Who roll’d the psalm tow: 

Who built him fanes of fi 


Who trusted God was love 
And Jove Creation’s final lay 
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw — 

With rapine, shriek’d against his ree 

Who loved, who suffer’d cou 
Who battled for the ‘ 
Be blown about the desert dust 

Or seal’d within the iron hills?” { 






































CONFORMITY TO TYPE. 


“Until Christ be formed in you.’’—Paul. 





*<The one end to which, in all living beings, fue form- 
ative impulse is tending—the one scheme which the 
Archzus of the old speculators strives to carry out, seems 
- .to be to mould the offspring into the likeness of the 
_ parent. Itis the first great Jaw of reproduction, that the 

offspring tends to resemble its parent or parents more 
_ elosely than anything else.’’—Huzley. 


Ir a botanist be asked the difference between 

an oak, a palm-tree, and a lichen, he will declare 

_ that they are separated from one another by 
the broadest line known to classification. 
* Without taking into account thé outward dif- 
ferences of size and form, the variety of flower 
and fruit, the peculiarities of leaf and branch, 


he sees even in their generalarchitecture types 


of structure as distinct as Norman, Gothic and 
‘Egyptian. But if the first young germs of 
i these three plants are placed before him and he 
is called upon to define the difference, he finds 
it impossible. He cannot even say which is 
which.” Examined under the highest powers 
_ ofthe microscope they yield noelue. Analyzed 
- by the chemist with all the appliances of his 
laboratory they keep their secret. 
The same experiment can be tried with the 
embryos of animals. Take the ovule of the 


Fy 














worm, the eagle, the elepeaaer an 
himself. Let the most skilled observer 
the most searching tests to distin Bion 4 
from the other and he will fail. But Veoea 
__ is something more surprising still. Comy 

a next the two sets of germs, the vegetable and _ 
'.» the animal. And there is still no shade of — 
Es difference. Oak and palm, worm and man, all 
start in life together. No matter into what — 
a strangely different forms they may afterwards- 
develop, no matter whether they are to live on — 
sea or land, creep or fly, swim’ or walk, think 
or vegetate, in the embryo as it first ‘meets the 
eye of Science they are indistinguishable. ‘The 
apple which fell in Newton’s Garden, Newton’s. 
‘dog Diamond, and Newton himself, ‘began life- 
at the same point.? 

, If we analyze this material point at which: 
». all life starts, we shall find it to consist of a. 








1“ Thereis, indeed, a period in the develo een a 
every tissue and every living thing known to us when: 
there are actually no structur al peculiarities whatever— 
Bas _ when the whole organism consists of transparent, struct- 
ee ureless, semi-fluid living bioplasm—when it would not: 
pein be possible to distinguish the growing moying matter 
: which was to evolve the oak from that which was the- 


et, germ of a vertebrate animal. Nor can any difference be” 
ae discerned between the bj matter -of the lowest, 





simplest, epithelial scale of man’s organism and that’ 
from which the nerve ce}ls of his brain are to be evolved. 


; Neither by studying bioplasm under the microscope nor™ 
‘oy by any kind of physical or chemical investigation known, 
re ean we form any notion of the nature of the substance- 
4 which is to be formed by the bioplasm, or what. will. 
by be the ordinary results of the living.” “B 

oi Lionel S. Beale, F.R.S., pp. 17, 18. 4 

; See 

s Fiat ames ee 











Me elear ph ENE a alike Sabstance resem-. & 

bling albumen or white of egg. It is made of 

rbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen. Its 
aame is protoplasm. And it is not “only the 
structural unit with which all living bodies 

_ start in life, but with which they are subse- 

quently builtup. “ Protoplasm, * says Huxley, 

“simple or nucleated, is the formal basis of all 

life. It is the clay of the Potter.” “Beast 

and fowl, reptile and fish, mollusk, worm and 

_ polype are all composed of structural units of 

_ the same character, namely, masses of pro- 

~ toplasm with nucleus.” ? 

What then determines the difference between 
different animals? What makes one little 
speck of protoplasm grow into Newton’s dog 
Diamond, and another, exactly the same, into 
Newton himself? It is a mysterious some- 

_ thing which has entered into this protoplasm. 
‘No eye can see it. No science can define it. 

_ There is a different something for Newton’s 
dog and a different something for Newton; so. 
that though both use the same matter they ne. 

build it up in these widely different ways. 

Protoplasm being the clay, this something is 

the Potter. And as there is only one clay and 
yet all these curious forms are developed out 
of it, it follows necessarily that the difference 
lies in the potters. There must in short be as 

_ many potters as there are forms. There is the 

potter who segments the worm, and the potter 

who builds up the form of the dog, and the 





















282 W CONFORMITY 
potter who moulds theman. To 1 
unmistakably that it is really the =) 
does the work, let us follow for amo 
description of the process by a trained e 
ness. The observer is Mr, Huxley. Thronu: gh 
the tube of his microscope he is watching ae 
development, out of a speck of protoplasm, of — 
one of the commonest animals: “ Strange 
possibilities,” he says, “lie dormant in that — 
semi-fluid globule. Let a moderate supply of 
warmth reach its watery cradle and the plastic 
matter undergoes changes so rapid and yet so 
steady and purposelike ‘in their succession that 
one can only compare them to those operated 
by a skilled modeller upon a formless lump of 
clay. As with an invisible trowel the mass is 
divided and subdivided into smaller and smaller 
portions, until it is reduced to an aggregation 
of granules not too large to build withal the 
finest fabrics of the nascent organism. . And, 
then, it is as if a delicate: finger traced out the 
line to be occupied by the spinal column, and 
moulded the contour of the body; pinching up 
the head at one end, the tail at the other, and 
fashioning flank and limb into due proportions 
in so artistic a way, that, after watching the 
process hour by hour, one is almost involun- 
tarily possessed by the notion, that some more 
subtle aid to vision than an achromatic would — 
show the hidden artist, with his plan before — 
him, striving with skilful manipulation te — 
perfect his work.” ? 
















1 Huxley : ‘“‘ Lay Sermons,” 6th Ed. p. 261. 






aa 


| * CONFORMITY TO TYPE. 26 







Besides the fact, soluminously brought out 
here, that the artist is distinct from the “semi- 
fluid globule ” of protoplasm in which he works, 
there is this other essential point to notice, 
‘that in all his “skilful manipulation” the 
_artist is not working at» random, but accord- 
ing to law. He has “his plan before him.” 
‘In the zoological laboratory of Nature it is 
_ not as in a workshop where a skilled artisan 
' ean turn his hand to anything—where the 
' same potter one day moulds a dog, the next a 
_ bird, and the next a man. In Nature one pot- 
_ ter is set apart to make each. It is a more 
- complete system of division of labor. One 
- artist makes all the dogs, another makes all 
the birds, a third makes all the men. More- 
over, each artist confines bimself exclusively 
to working out his own plan. He appears to 
- have his own plan somewhat stamped upon 
_ himself, and his work is ‘rigidly to reproduce 
himself. 

The Scientific Law by which this takes place 
is the Law of Conformity to Type. It is con- 
_ tained, to a large extent, in the ordinary Law 
_ of Inheritance; or it may be considered as | 
_ simply another way of stating what Darwin ~ 

calls the Law of Unity of Type. Darwin de- 

fines it thus: “By Unity of Type is meant 
that fundamental agreement in structure 
_ which we see in organic beings of the same 
_ class, and which is quite independent of their 
_ habits of life.” According to this law every 
Bf aes 








eS eee 
sr 


Zi 





1** Origin of Species,’’ p. 166. 








4 
$ 





234 CONFORMITY a 


of itself. "The dog, caries to it 
duces a dog; the bird a bird. 





The Artist who operates upon matter in this _ 


subtle way and curries out this law is Life. 


There are a great many different kinds of Life. 
If one might give the broader meaning to the 


words of the apostle: “All life is not the 


same life. There is one kind of life of men, 


another life of beasts, another of fishes, and. 
another of birds.” There is the Life, or the 
Artist, or the Potte; who segments the worm, 
the potter who forms the dog, the potter who 


_ moulds the man. * 


What goes on then in the aninat kingdo mn 


is this—the Bird-Life seizes upon the a 


germ and builds it up into a bird, theimage of 


itself. The Reptile-Life seizes upon another 


germinal speck, assimilates surrounding mat- 


ter, and fashions it into a reptile. The Rep- 
tile-Life thus simply makes an incarnation of 
itself. The visible bird is simply an inearna- 
tion of the invisible Bird-Life, 


1 There is no intention here to countenance the old 
doctrine of the permanence of species. Whether the 


word species represent a fixed quantity or the reverse 


does not affect the question. The facts as stated are 
true in contemporary zoology if not in palzontol 

It may also be added that the general conception o a 
definite Vital Principle is used here simply as a working 
hypothesis. Science may yet have to give up what the 
Germans call the ‘‘ ontogenetic directive Force.”’ But 


in the absence of any proof to the contrary, and espe- é 


cially of any satisfactory alternative, we are justified in 
working still with the old theory. outa) 








TYPE. | 


ow we are nearing the point where the _ 
spiritual analogy appears. It is a very won- 
ferful analogy, so wonderful that one almost 
hesitates to put it into words. Yet Nature is 
reverent; and it is her voice to which we listen. | 
These lower phenomena of life, she says, are 
ut an allegory.. There is another kind of 
Life of which Science as yet has taken little 
cognizance, | It obeys the same laws. It builds 
‘ up an organism into its own form. It is the 
_ Christ- Life. _As the Bird-Life builds up a bird, 
- ‘the image of itself, so the Christ-Life builds up 
a Christ, the image of Himself, in the inward 
nature of man. When a man becomes a Chris- 
_ tian the natural process is this: The Living 
Christ enters into his soul. Development be- 
gins. The quickening Life seizes upon the 
| soul, assimilates surrounding elements, and. 
_ begins to fashion it. According to the great 
Law of Conformity to Type this fashioning 
takes a specific form. Itis that of the Artist 
























derful, mystical, glorious, yet ‘perfectly definite 
process goes on “until Christ be formed” 

in it. 

The Christian Life is not a vague effort after 
i righteousness—an ill-defined pointless struggle 
_ for an ill-defined pointless end. Religion is no 
dishevelled mass of aspiration, prayer, and 
_ faith. There is no more inet in Religion — 
There is 






eOaihig ot Life yet, nothing of development. 
pores is ape same 1¢ mystery in the spiritual Life. 






who fashions. And all through Life this won- | ‘ 








_ology of the New Life? Is the analogy inval 









oan 
286 - CONFORMITY TO 
But the great lines are the same, 
luminous ; and the laws of natural and tu 
are the same, as unerring, as simp Will . 
everything else in the natural world unfold its 
order, and yield to Science more and more a 
vision of harmony and Religion, which should — 
complement and perfect all, remain a chaos? — 
From the standpoint of Revelation no truth is 
more obscure than Conformity to Type. If 
Science can furnish a companion phenomenon — 
from an every-day process of the natural life, — 
it may at least throw this most mystical doe- 
trine of Christianity into thinkable form. Is 
there any fallacy in speaking of the aca 
id? 





Are there not vital processes in the Spiritual 
as well as in the Natural world? The Bird 


_ being an incarnation of the Bird-Life, may not 


the Christian be a spiritual inearnation of the — 
Christ-Life? And is there not a real justifi- — 
cation in the processes of the New Birth for 

such a parallel? Pay: 

Let us appeal to the record of these pro- 
cesses. 

In what terms does the New Testament 
describe them? The answer is sufficiently 
striking. It uses everywhere the language of 
Biology. It is impossible that the New Testa- 
ment writers should have been familiar with 
these biological facts. It is impossible that 
their views of this great truth should have 
been as clear as Science can make them now. 
But they had no alternative. There was no — 
other way of expressing this truth. It wasa ' 



























biological question. So they struck out un-— 
-hesitatingly into the new field of words, and, 
- with an originality which commands both 
reverence and surprise, stated their truth 
with such light, or darkness, as they had. 
They did not mean to be scientific, only tobe. 
accurate, and their fearless accuracy has made 
them scientific. 
_ What could be more original, for instance, 
_ than the apostle’s reiteration ‘that the Christian 
was a new Creature, a new man, a babe?! Or 
that this new man was “begotten of God,” 
- God’s workmanship?? And what could be a 
- more accurate expression of the law of Con- 
_ formity to Type than this: “Put on the new 
~ man, which is renewed in knowledge after the 
I image of Him that created him”?* Or this, 
«We are changed into the same image from 
- glory to glory”?* And elsewhere we are 
expressly told by the same writer that this 
_ Conformity is the end and goal of the Christian 
_ life. To work this Type in us is the whole 
purpose of God and man. “Whom He did 
_ foreknow He also did predestinate to be con- 
_ formed to the image of His Son.” ® 
_ One must confess that the originality of this 
_ entire New Testament conception is most 
startling. . Even for the nineteenth century itis 
- most startling. But when one remembers that 
such an idea took form in the first, he cannot 
- fail to be impressed with a deepening wonder 


12 Cor. v. 17. 21 John y. 1831 Pet. i. 3 
3 Col. iii. 9, 10. #2 Cor. iii, 18. 
5 ie viii. 129, 















ACR ys Ares nt ds 
eas ihiee WEED EOS b 





288 CONFORMITY T 


at the system which begat and chi 


Men seek the origin of Christianity among the. : 


philosophies of that age. Scholars contrast it 


still with these philosophies, and scheme to fit © 


it in to those of later growth. Has it never 


occurred to then: how much more it is than a 


philosophy, that it includes a science, a Biol 
pure and simple? As well might naturalists 
eontrast zoology with chemistry, or seek to in- 


corporate geology with botany—the living with — 


the dead—as try to explain the spiritual life 






in terms of mind alone. When willit be seen 


that the characteristic of the Christian Religion 


is its Life, that a true theology must begin 


with a Biology ? Theology is the Science of 
God, Why will men treat God as inorganic? 

If this analogy is capable of being worked 
out, weshould expect answers to at least three 
questions. 

First: What corresponds to the protoplasm 
in the spiritual sphere? 

Second: What is the Life, the Hidden Artist 
who fashions it? 


Third: What do we know of the process 


and the plan? ‘ 
First: The Protoplasm. 
We should be forsaking the lines of nature 


were we to imagine for a moment that thenew 
creature was to be formed out of nothing. ° 


Hx nihilo nihil—nothing ¢an be made out of 
nothing. Matter is uncreatable and indestruc- 
tible; Nature and man can only form and 
transform. Hence when anew animal is made 
no new clay is made. Life merely enters inte 












- CONFORMITY TO TYPE. 989 


already existing matter, assimilates more of 
the same sort and rebuilds it. The spiritual 
_ Artist works m the same way. He must have 
- apeculiar kind of protoplasm, a basis of life, 
_ and that must be already existing. 
Now fle finds this in the materials of char- 
acter with which the natural man is previously 
provided. Mind and character, the will and the 
affections, the moral nature—these form the 
| bases of spiritual life. To look in this diree- 
tion for the protoplasm of the spiritual life is - 
| consistent with all analogy.. The lowest or 
mineral world mainly supplies the material— 
and this is true even for insectivorous species 
—for the vegetable kingdom. The vegetable 
supplies the material for the animal. Next in © 
turn, the animal furnishes material for the 
mental, and lastly, the mental for the spiritual, 
Each member of the series is complete only 
when the steps below it are complete; the 
highest demands all. It is not necessary for 
the immediate purpose to go so far into the 
psychology either of the new creature or ofthe _ 
old as to define more clearly what these moral 
bases are. It is enough to discover that in 
_ this womb the new creature is to be born, 
; fashioned out of the mental and moral parts, 
substance, or essence of the natural man. The 
only thing to be insisted upon is that in the 
-. natural man this mental and moral substance 
or basis is spiritually lifeless. However active 
the intellectual or moral life may be, from the 
point of view of this other Life it is dead? 
That which is flesh is flesh. It wants, that is 
19 § 


eC SR I a Z 
Meet toh Sol SS ee ag eee 





t 





_ *this spiritual life should not be engrafted upon 










difference between the Curistiet on ch 
Christian. It has not yet been, “bo of 
Spirit.” ; an 

To show further that this protop ] 
sesses the necessary properties of a norn 
protoplasm it will be necessary to examine 
passing what these properties are. ‘They ¢ 
two in number, the capacity for life and ae 


~ ticity. Consider first: the capacity for life. ~ ig 


is not enough to find an adequate cee aut 
material. That mater ‘al must be of ems & 
kind. For all kinds o° matter haye not ‘the : 
power to be the vehicle of life—all kinds of 
matter are not even fitted to be the vehicle of — 
electricity. What peculiarity there is in Car: 
bon, H ydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen, when 
combined in a certain way, to receive life, 
cannot tell. We only know that life is always — f 
associated in Nature with this particular phys- : 
ical basis and never with any other. But we 
are not in the same darkness with regard 
to the moral protoplaam. When we look at 
this complex combination which we have predi- 
cated as the basis of spiritual life, we dofind 
something which gives it a peculiar qualifi- — 
eation for being the protoplasm of the Christ- 
Life. We discover one strong reason at least, — 
not only why this kind of life should be asso- — 
ciated with this kind of protoplasm, but why 
it should never be associated with other kinds 
which seem to resemble it—why, for instance, — 








the intelligence of a dog or the instinct of ee ri 





The asian in man has a something i it 
‘addition to its instincts or its habits. Ithasa 
_ Gapacity for God. In this capacity for God lies — 
its receptivity; it is the very protoplasm that | 
was necessary. ‘The chamber is not only — 
_ ready to receive the new Life, but the Guest is — 
expected, and, till He comes, is missed. Till 
then the soul longs and yearns, wastes aud) 
_ pines, waving its tentacles piteously in the — 
-— empty air, feeling after God if. so be that it 
may find Him. This is not peculiar to the — 
_ protoplasm of the Christian’s soul. In every 
land and in every age there have'been altars 
tothe Known or Unknown God. It is now 
agreed as a mere question of anthropology that 
the universal language of the human soul has 
-always been “I perish with hunger.” This is” 
_ what fits it for Christ. There is a grandeur in 
_ . this ery from the depths which makes its very 
. unhappiness sublime. 

_ The other quality we are to look for in the © 

soul is mouldableness, plasticity. Conformity 
‘demands conformability. Now plasticity as — 
_ not only a marked characteristic of all forms of — 
life, but in a special sense of the highest forms. 
It increases steadily as we rise in the scale. 
The inorganic world, to begin with, is rigid. 
A crystal of silica dissolved and redissolved a 
thousand times will never assume any other 
form than the hexagonal. The plant next, 
tC nouek plastic in its elements, is comparatively 
_ insusceptible of change. The very fixity of its 
“sphere, the “PAR for Tife in. a rhe 
























SG Sie ie 


292 





dation. The animal in all its pate is” 
sensitive, free ; the highest animal, man, is the — 
most mobile, the most at leisure from routine, 
the most impressionable, the most open for 
change. And when we Yeach the mind and 
soul, this mobility is found in its most de- 
veloped form. Whether we regard its sus- 
ceptibility to impressions, its lightning-like re- 
sponse even to influences the most impalpable 
and subtle, its power of instantaneous adjust- 
ment, or whether we regard the delicacy and 
variety of its moods, or its vast powers of 
growth, we are forced to recognize in this the | 
most perfect capacity for change. The mar. 
vellous plasticity of mind contains at once the 
possibility and prophecy of its transformation. 
he soul, in a word, is made to be converted. 

Second, the Life. 

The main reason for giving the Life, the 
agent of this change, a separate treatment, is 
to emphasize the distinction between it and the 
natural man on the one hand, and the spiritual 
man on the other. The natural man is its 
basis, the spiritual man is its product, the Life 
itself is something different. ~Just as in an or- 
ganism we have these three things—formative 
matter, formed. matter, and the forming prin- 
ciple or life; so in the soul we have the old: 
nature, the renew ed nature, and the ae 
ing Life. 

This being made evident, little remains here 
to be added. No man has’ever seen this Life. 
It cannot be analyzed, or weighed, or traced in 
its essential nature. But this is just what we 





ie expected. This acre sibility is the amb on 
_ erty which we found to be peculiar to th 





Rat- 






ural life. We saw no life in the first embryos. __ 


in oak, in palm, or in bird. In the adult it 
likewise escapes us. We shall not wonder if 


we cannot see it in the Christian. We shall 
“not expect to see it. A fortiori we shall not 


expect to see it, for we are further removed 
from the coarser matter—moving now among 
ethereal and spiritual things. It is because it 


conforms to the law, of this analogy so well 


that men, not seeing it, have denied its being. 
Is it hopeless to point out that one of the most 
recognizable characteristics of life is its un- 
recosnizableness, and that the very token of 
its spiritual nature lies in its being beyond the 


_grossness of our eyes ? 


p 


We do not pretend that Science can define — 


this Life to be Christ. It has no definition to 


give even of its own life, much less of this, 


But there are converging lines which Does 
at least, in the direction that it is Christ. 
There was One whom history acknowledeaan 
to have been the Truth. One of His claims 
was this, “I am the Life.” According to the 


doctrine of Biogenesis, life can only come from 


fe 


life. It was His additional claim that His pi 


function in the world was to give men Life. 


~ “Tam come that ye might have Life, and that 
- ye might have it more abundantly. mt 


could not refer to the natural life, for men had 
that already. He that hath the Son hath an. 
other Life. “Know ye not your own selves — 
how that Jesus Christ is in you.” 











ee there are men whos 
sume*a strange, resemblance to H 
the Life. When we see the bird-ch 
pear in an organism we assume that ; 
Life has been there at work, And when 
behold Conformity to Type in a Christian, and — 
- know moreover that the type-organization can ~ 
be produced by the type-life alone, does this 
not lend support to the hypothesis that the 
Type-Life also has been here at work? If 9 
every effect demands a cause, what other Boe 
cause is there for the Christian? When we 
have a cause, and an adequate cause, and my 
other adequate cause; when we have the ex 
: press statement of that Cause tliat he is that. 
cause, what more is possible? “Let not Science, 
ay knowing nothing of its own life, go further .: 
> than to say it knows nothing of’ this Life. 

_» We shall not dissent from its silence. But 
till it tells us what it is, we wait for evidence 
~~ that itis not this. EY 

Third, the Process. BS ag 
St is impossible to enter at length into any 

details of the great miracle by which this pro- 

toplasm is to be conformed to the Image of the 

Son. We enter that province now only so far 

as this Law of Conformity compels us. Nor 

is it so much the nature of the process we have © 

to consider as its general direction and results. 
We are dealing with a question of OLpEGORY. 
rather than of physiology. “ 
~ ___ It must occur to one on reaching this: point, 
that a new element here comes in which com- 
> pels us, for the moment, to Bet cone with — 























at isihent is the conscious power 
‘The animal in following the type 
Ris’ blind, \ It does not only follow the type 
involuntarily and compulsorily, but does net 
_ know that it is following it. We might cer 
tainly have been made to conform to the Type 
in the higher sphere with no more knowledge 
or power of choice than animals or automata. 
But then we should not have been men. It is 
a possible case, but.not possible to the kind of | 
. protoplasm with which men are furnished, | 
Owing to the peculiar characteristics of this 
ais protoplasm an additional and exceptional pro- 
-. yision is essential. Y 
a, The first demand is that being conscious and ~ 
having this power of choice, the mind should: 
- have an adequate knowledge of what it is to — 
choose. Some revelation of the Type, that is 
_ to say, is necessary. And as that revelation 
“can only come from the Type, we must look 
there for it. 
_. Weare confronted at once with the Inear- 
antl ehatton. There we find how the. Christ-Life 
has clothed-Himself with matter, taking literal 
i flesh, and dwelt among us. The Incarnation — 
f is the Life revealing the Type. Men are long — 
- since agreed that this is the end of the Incarna-_ 
tion—the revealing of God. But why should 
_God be revealed? Why, indeed, but forman? 
Why but that “beholding as in a glass the © 
glory of the only begotten we should be 
_ ehanged into the same Image” ? 
To meet the power of choice, however, some-_ 
eaing more was necessary than the mere reve- 






































SE a a ae 





296 co. FORMITY: TO TYP 


lation of the Type—it was necessary that ine 
Type should be the highest conceivable T 

Tn other words, the Type must bean Ideal. or 
all true human growth, effort, and achievement, 
an ideal is acknowledged to be indispensable. 
And all men accordingly whose lives are based 
ou principle, have set themselves an ideal, more 
or less perfect. It is this which first deflects 
the will from what is base, and turns the way- — 
ward life to what is holy.. So much is true as 
mere philosophy. But philosophy failed to pre- 
sent men with their ideal. It has never been 
suggested that Christianity has failed. Be- 
lievers and unbelievers have been compelled to 
acknowledge that Christianity holds up to the 
world the missing Type, the Perfect Man. 

The recognition of the Ideal is the first step 
in the direction of Conformity. But let it be 
clearly observed that it is but a step. There 
is no vital connection between merely seeing 
the Ideal and being conformed to it. Thou- 

sands admire Christ who never Reon Chris- 
tians. 

But the great question still remains, How is 
the Christian to be conformed to the Type, or 
us we should now say. dealing with conscious- 
ness, to the Ideal? The mere knowledge of 
the Ideal is no more than a mdtive. How is 
the process to be practically accomplished ? 
Who is to do it? Where, when, how? This 
is the test question of Christianity. It is here 
that all theories of Christianity, all attempts 
to explain it on natural principles, all reduc- 
tions of it to philosophy, inevitably break down. 


> 


4 CONFORMITY 10 TYPE, 297 





) >) Et: is "ete oe all imitations of Christianity 1 
perish. It is here, also, that personal religion — 


finds its most fatal obstacle. Menare all quite _ 
clear about the Ideal. We are all convinced — 
of the duty of mankind regarding it. But how — 


to secure that willing men shall attain it—that 
is the problem of religion. It is the failure to 
understand the dynamics of Christianity that 
has most seriously and most pitifully hindered 


its growth both in the individual and in the 


race. 


From the standpojnt of biology this practical 
difficulty vanishesin amoment. It is probably 


the very simplicity of the law regarding it that 


has made men stumble. For nothing is soin-) 


visible to most men as transparency. The law 


here is the same biological law that exists in 


the natural world. For centuries men have 
striven to find out ways and means to conform 


themselves to this type. Impressive motives © 
have been pictured, the proper circumstances — 
arranged, the direction of effort defined, and — 
ynen have toiled, struggled, and agonized to 


vonform themselves to the Image of the Son. 
Can the protoplasm conform itself to its type? 
Can the embryo fashion itself? Is Conformity 


to Type produced by the matter or by the life, 
by the protoplasm or by the Type? Is organi- — 


zation the cause of life or the effect of it? It 


_ is the effect of it. Conformity to Type, there- 


fore, is secured by the type. Christ makes the 
Christian. 


Men need only to reflect on the automatic 
_. processes of their natural body to discover that 


Be ree 


Ee eae eh 


Sia ; 
Se ee ee ee eee oe 













298. CONFORMITY 


this is the universal law of Life 
any man consciously do, for im 
matter of breathing? What part does 
in circulating the blood, in. keeping 
rhythm of his heart? What control ha . 
over growth? What man by taking thought — 
ean add a cubit to his stature? What part 
_ voluntarily does man take in secretion, in di- 
~ gestion, in the reflex actions? In point of fact 
» is he not after all the veriest automaton, every 
organ of his body given him, every function ~ 
arranged for him, brain and nerve, thought ~ 
and sensation, will and conscience, all provided — 
for him ready made?. And yet he turns upon — 
his soul and wishes to organize that himself! O 
preposterous and vain man, thou who couldest 
not make a finger nail of thy body, thinkest — 
thou to fashion this wonderful, mysterious, — 
subtle soul of thine after the ineffable Image ? 
' Wilt thou ever permit thyself to de conformed 
to the Image of the Son? Wilt thou, who 
canst not add a cubit to thy stature, submit to 
be raised by the Type-Life within thee to the » 
perfect stature of Christ? 
This is a humbling conclusion. And there- 
fore men will resent it. Men will still experi- 
ment “by works of righteousness which they — 
have done” to earn the Ideal life. The doc- - 
trine of Human Inability, as the Church ealls 
it, has always been objectionable to men who 
do not know themselves. The doctrine itself, 
perhaps, has been partly to blame. While it _ 
has been often affirmed. in such language as 
rightly to humble men, it has also been stated 


















Pee a 


ee 10. TYPE. 








orm 





HANG cose 






} Sale justilt pte Monty to assert Hpeitet ec : 
_eally that man has no power to move hand or: 
foot to help himself toward Christ, carries no_ 
real conviction, The weight of human author- 
“ity is always powerless, and ought to be where — x 
- the intelligence is denied a rationale. In the Be 
light of modern science when men seek a reason _ 
‘ for every thought of God or man, this old doc- ~ 
__ trine with its severe and almost inhuman as- 
pect—till rightly understood—must presently 
have succumbed. But to the biologist it can-  ~ 
not die. It stands to him on the solid ground 
ef Nature. It has a reason in the laws of life ey 
which must resuscitate it and give it another 
~ lease of years. Bird-Life makes the Bird. | 
Christ-Life makes the Christian, No man by ae 
taking thought can add a cubit to his stature, _ 
So much for the scientific evidence. Here is — 
the corresponding statement of the truth from _ 
Scripture. Observe the passive voice in these — 7 
we) sentences: “ « Bey “gotten of God’ “The new — 








“oa 





of Image of Him that created, him; ” op r this, “We 

: are changed into the same Image; ” or this, © 

; «“ Predestinate to be conformed to the Image of — 

pie 3 Fe Son,” or again, ‘“ Until Christ be formed i 

i you. Or,’ Except a man be born again he. 

cannot see the Kingdom of God;” “Except a 
man be bern of water and of the Spirit he can- 
not enter the Kingdom of God.” There is one 
‘outstanding verse which seems at first sight 

on the other side: “ Work out your own sal- 

4 - vation with fear and trembling;” but as one — 








S 


ages 
¥ 


> OR ae oi 
Sa iS. Jai See arms 


> 
i 
‘§ 
- 
a 


a 
: 3 
ann 


ee 





< 


FP ig tae PR RON, PP TO 


oe 







300 CONFORMI TY TO 


reads on he finds,.as if the writer 
very misconception, the complement, | 


eh 
is God which worketli in you both to wil Vand i 


todo of His good pleasure.” 

It will be noticed in these passages, aa in 
others which might be named, that the process 
of transformation is referred indifferently to 


the agency of each Person of the Trinity in- 


i 


turn. We are not concerned to take up this — 


question of detail. It is sufficient that the 
transformation is wrought. 
Theologians, however, distinguish thus: the 


indirect agent is Christ, the direct influence is — 


the Holy “Spirit. In other words, Christ by 
His Spirit renews the souls of men. 


Is man, then, out of the arena altogether? 
Is he mere clay in the hands of the potter, 


a machine, a tool, an automaton?’ Yes and No. 


‘Tf he were a tool he would not be a man. Tf 


he were a man he would have something to do. 
One need not seek to balance what God does 
here, and what man does. But we shall attain 
to a sufficient measure of truth on a most deli- 
cate problem if we make a final appeal to the 
natural life. We find that in maintaining this 
natural life Nature has a share and man has a 
share. By far the larger part is done for us— 
the breathing, the secreting, the circulating, 
of the blood, ‘the building up of the organism, 
And although the part which man plays is 
a minor part, yet, strange to say, it is not less 
essential to the well-being, and even to the 
being of the whole. For instanee, man has to 


take food. He has nothing to do with it after 











this lips it is taken in hand by reflex actions 


and handed on from one organ to another, his — A ; 


control over it, in the natural course of things, 
being completely lost. But the initial act was 
his. And without that nothing could have 
been done. Now whether there be an exact 
analogy between the voluntary and involuntary 
functions in the body, and the corresponding 


processes in the soul, we do not at present 


inquire. But this will indicate, at least, that 
man has his own part to play. Let him choose 
Life; let him daily nourish his soul; let him 


forever starve the old life; let him abide con- 


tinuously as a living branch in the Vine, and 


the True-Vine Life will flow into his soul; as-— 


similating, renewing, conforming to Type, till 


him. 
We have been dealing with Christianity at 


its most mystical point. Mark here once more eh. 
its absolute naturalness. The pursuit ofthe ~~ 


Type is just what all Nature is engaged in. 
Plant and insect, fish and reptile, bird and 
mammal—these in their several spheres are 
striving after the Type. To prevent its extine- 
tion, to ennoble it, to people earth and sea and 
sky with it; this is the meaning of the Struggle 


not visionaries. We are not “ unpractical,” 


CONFORMITY TO TYPE. 301 8 


_ he has once taken it, for the moment it passes — } ; 


Christ, pledged by His own law, be formedin 


_ Aor Life.- And this is our life—to pursue the 
Type, to populate the world with it. he 
Our religion is not all a mistake. We are 





ter 


as men pronounce us, when we worship. To 
_ try to follow Christ is not to be “righteous _ 











oF Fo, Sac ia igs 


» overmuch.” True men are not rhapsodi 


302 CONFORMITY TO T 


when they preach; nor do those waste 
lives who waste themselves in strivin 
extend the Kingdom of God on earth, 


i 


This 


is what lifeis for. The Christian in his life-aim — | 


is in strict line with Nature. Whatmen call 
his supernatural is quite natural. Vee 
Mark well also the splendor of this idea of — 
salvation. It is not merely final “safety,” to — 
be forgiven sin, to evade thecurse, It is not, 
vaguely, “to get to heaven.” It is to be con- - 
formed to the Image ofthe Son. It is for these 
poor elements to attain to the Supreme Beauty. — 
The organizing Life being Eternal, so must — 
this Beauty be immortal. Its progress towards 
the Immaculate is already guaranteed. And 
more than all there is here fulfilled the sub- 
limest of all prophecies; not Beauty alone but 
Unity is secured by the type—Unity of man 
and man, God and man, God and Christ and 
man, till “all shall be one.” 
Could Science in its most brilliant anticipa- — 
tions for the future of its highest organism 
ever have foreshadowed a development like 
this? Now that the revelation is made to it, 


it surely recognizes it as the missing point in 
Evolution, the climax to which all Creation 


terids. Hitherto Evolution had no future. It 
was a pillar with marvellous carving, growing . 
richer and finer towards the top, but without — 


a capital; a pyramid, the vast base buried in — 


the inorganic, towering higher and higher, tier 


above tier, life above life, mind above mind, ever ~ 


-— more perfect in its workmanship, more noble 













r 


: Prey sid bai withal so much the 
more mysterious in its aspiration. The most 
- curious eye, following it upwards, saw nothi 
‘The cloud fell and covered it. Just what men 
_ wanted to see was hid. The work of the or 
+ had no apex. But the work begun by Nature _ 
__ is finished by the Supernatural—as weare wont — 
to call the higher natural. And as the veil is Py 
lifted by Christianity it strikes men dumb with — 
wonder. For the goal of Evolution ‘is Jesus 
Bur Ohrist: ; ag 
_. The Christian life is the only life that will 
_ ever be completed. Apart from Christ the life 
-. of man is a broken pillar, the race of Men an — = 
_ unfinished pyramid. One by one in sight of — 7 
Eternity all human Ideals fall short, one by one 
before the open grave all human hopes dissolve. 
The Laureate sees a moment’s light in Nature’s 
jealousy for the Type; but that_too vanishes.’ — 
































**© So careful of the type ?* but no, 
From scarped cliff and quarried stone 
She cries, ‘ A thousand t gor gone ; 
I care for nothing, all sha 2 


Allshall go? No,oneType remains. “Whom 

He did foreknow He also did predestinate to” z 

_ be conformed to the Image of His Son.” And 

' “when Christ who is our life shall appear, 
- + than shall ye also appear with Him in glory’ 


“ts 
arr 











never yet vente pc 


hapa 
| a out therefrom, Wek. 








‘SEMI-PARASITISM. 





“Work out your own salvation.’’—Paui. 

kar “ Any new set of conditions occurring to an animal 
which render its food and safety very easily attained, 
seem to lead as a rule to degeneration.”’—E. Ray Lan- 
kester. 





Parasites are the paupers of Nature. They 
‘are forms of life which will not take the 
trouble to find their own food, but borrow or 
steal it from the more imaustrious. So deep- 
rooted is this tenaency mm Nature, that plants 
“may become parasitic—it is an acquired habit 
-—as well as animals; and both are found in 
every state of begeary, some doing a little for 
themselves, while others, more abject, refuse 
ven to prepare their own food. 

There are certain plants—the Dodder, for 
instance—which begin life with the best inten- 
tions, strike true roots into the soil, and really 
appear as if they meant to be independent for 
life. But after supporting themselves for a 
Drief period they fix curious sucking dises into 


And ate and branches of adjacent plants. 






f 





And after a little experimenting, the epiphyte 
finally ceases to do anything for its own sup- 
‘port, thenceforth drawing all its supplies 
ready-made from the sap of its host. In this 
parasitic state it has no need for organs of 






oo 





| 






308 SEMLP4RASITISM. Manet 


nutrition of its own, and Nature therefore 
takes them away. Henceforth, to the botanist, 
the adult Dodder presents the degraded spec. 
tacle of a plant without a root, without a twig, 
without a leaf, and having a stem so useless as 
to be inadequate to bear its own weight. 

In the Mistletoe the parasitic habit has 
reached a stage in some respects lower still. 
It has persisted in the downward course for so 
many generations that the young forms even 
have acquired the habit and usually begin life 
at once as parasites. The Mistletoe berries, 
which contain the seed of the future plant, are 
developed specially to minister to this degen- 
eracy, for they glue themselves to the branches 
of some neighboring oak or apple, and there 
the young Mistletoe starts as a dependent from 
the first. : 

Among animals these /azzaront are more 
largely represented still. Almost every ani- 
mal is a living poor-house, and harbors one 
or more species of epizoa or entozoa, supplying 
them gratis, not only with a permanent home, 
but with all the necessaries and luxuries of life. 

Why does the naturalist think hardly of the 
parasites? Why does he speak of them as de- 
graded, and despise them as the most ignoble 
creatures in Nature? What more cam am ani- 
mal do than eat, drink, and die to-morrow ? 
If under the fostering care and protection of a 
higher organism it can eat better, drink more 
easily, live more merrily, and die, perhaps not 
until the day after, why should it not do so? 
4s parasitism, after all, not a somewhat clever 


ee, 










e? Is it not an ingenious way of securing 
he benefits of life while evading its responsi- 
_ bilities? And although this mode of liveli- © ~ 
hood is selfish, and possibly undignified, can it == 
be said that it is immoral? 

- The naturalist’s reply to this is brief. Para- 
 sitism, he will say, is one of the gravest crimes 
» in Nature. It isa breach of the law of Evo- 
lution. Thou shalt evolve, thou shalt develop 
all thy faculties to the full, thou shalt attain 
_ to the highest conceivable perfection of thy 
_ race—and so perfect thy race—this is the first 
- and greatest commandment of Nature. But 

the parasite has no thought for its race, or for 
_ perfection in anyshape or form. It wants two 
- things—food and shelter. How it gets them 
is of no moment. Each member lives exclu- 
_ sively on its own account, an isolated, indolent, 
_ selfish, and backsliding life. 

The remarkable thing is that Nature permits | 
the community to be taxed in this way appar- 
ently without protest. For the parasite is a 

consumer pure and simple. And the “ Perfect 

Economy of Nature” is surely for once at fault 

when it encourages species numbered by thou- 

sands which produce nothing for their ownor- 

for the general good, but live, and live luxur- _ 
_ iously, at the expense of others ? 

Now when we look into the matter, we very — 

soon perceive that instead of secretly coun- 





4 


< 
' tenancing this ingenious device by which ‘ 
_ parasitic animals and plants evade the great => 
_ law of the Struggle for Life, Nature sets her 
face most sternly- against it. And,instead of 


1 
ee 


y 
. 








ph Same OR 





et Tore ea 


ee re cat. Pe a ta ee alii Mr spar ier se int — 





Bae ea " SEMEPAR SITISM. 


allowing the transgressors to sli 
fingers, as one might at first Aes e 
visits upon them the most severe ani terrible © 
penalties. The parasite, she argues, not only 
injures itself, but wrongs others. It disobeys. 
the fundamental law of itsown being, and taxes 
the innocent to contribute to its disgrace. — So 
that if Nature is just, if Nature has an aveng- 
ing hand,-if she holds one vial of wrath more 
full and bitter than another, it shall surely be 
poured out upon those who are guilty of this 
double sin. Let us see what form this punish- 
ment takes. 

Observant visitors to the sea-side, or let} us 
say to an aquarium, are familiar with those 


- curious little creatures known as sHermit- 


crabs. The peculiarity of the Hermits is that 
they take up their abode in the cast-off shell 
of some other animal, not unusually the whelk; 
and here, like Diogenes in his tub, the creature 
lives a solitary, but by no means an inactive | 
life. 

The Pagurus, however, is not a parasite, 
And yet although in no sense of the word a 
parasite, this way of inhabiting throughout 
life a house built by another animal approaches 
so closely the! parasitic habit, that we shall 
find it instructive as a preliminary illustration, 
to consider the effect of this free-house policy 
on the occupant. There is no doubt, to begin 
with, that, as has been already indicated, the 
habit is an acquired one. In its general an- 
atomy the Hermit is essentially a crab. Now 
*i£2 crabis an animal which, from the nature 








of its environment, has to lead a somewhat 
ough and perilous life. Its days are spent 
imongst jagged rocks and boulders. » Dashed 
about by every wave, attacked on every side 
hy monsters of the deep, the crustacean has to” 
protect itself by developing a strong and ser- 
viceable coat of mail. 

_ How best to protect themselves has been 

the problem to which the whole crab family 
_ have addressed themselves ; and, in considering 
the matter, the ancestors of the Hermit-crab 

hit on the happy device of re-utilizing the 
habitations of the molluscs which lay around 

: them in plenty, well-built, and ready for im- 
mediate occupation. For generations and gen- 
_ erations accordingly, the Her mit-crab - has 
ceased to exercise itself upon questions of safety, 

‘and dwells in its little shell as proudly and 
securely as if its second-hand house were a 
_ fortress erected especially for its private use. 

_ Wherein, then, has the Hermit suffered for 
this cheap, but real solution of a practical 
difficulty ? Whether its laziness costs it any 
- moral qualms, or whether its cleverness be- 

comes to it a source of congratulation, we do — 
not know; but judged from the appearance 
the animal makes under the searching gaze of 
- the zoologist, its expedient is certainly not one 

. Ce be commended. To the eye: of Science its 
sin is written in the plainest characters on its 

‘ “very organization. It has suffered in its own 

anatomical structure just by as much as it has 

borrowed from an external source. / Instead 
of being a perfect crustacean it has allowed 





‘ 














312 SEMIL-PARAS 


certain important parts of its body to deteri- 
orate. And several vital organs are partially 
or wholly atrophied. — 

Its sphere of life also is now seriously 
limited; and by a cheap expedient to secure 
safety, it has fatally lost its independence. It 
is plain from its anatomy that the Hermit-crab 
was not always a Hermit-crab. It was meant 
for higher things. Its ancestors doubtless 
were more or less perfect crustaceans, though 
what exact stage of development was reached 
before the hermit habit became fixed in the 
species we cannot tell. But from the moment 
the creature took to relying on an external 
source, it began to fall. - It slowly lost in its 
own person all that it now draws from external 
aid. 

As an important item in the day’s work, 
namely, the securing of safety and shelter, was 
now guaranteed to it, one of the chief induce- 
ments to a life of high and vigilant effort was 
at the same time withdrawn. A number of 
functions, in fact, struck work. The whole of 
the parts, therefore, of the complex organism 
which ministered to these functions, from lack 
of exercise, or total disuse, became gradually 
feeble; and ultimately, by the stern law that 
an unused organ must suffer a slow but in- 
evitable atrophy, the creature not only lost all 
power of motion in these parts, but lost the 
parts themselves, and otherwise sank into a 
relatively degenerate condition. 

Every normal crustacean, on the other hand, 
has the abdominal region of the body covered 





ea < 
cs 
=) 
ees 
24 






\ SEMI- PARASITISM., 313 
ie a thick chitinous shell. In the Hermits 
this is represented only by a thin and delicate 
-membrane—of which the sorry figure the 
ereature cuts when drawn from its foreign 
_hiding-place is sufficient evidence. Any one 
who now examines further this half-naked 
Le woe-begone object, will perceive also that 
e fourth and fifth pair of limbs are either 
so small and wasted as to be quite useless or 
altogether rudimentary; and, although cer- 
tainly the additional development of the ex- 
tremity of the tail into an organ for holding on 
to its extemporized retreat may be regarded 
_as_a slight compensation, it is clear from the 
_ whole structure of the animal that it has 
_llowed itself to undergo severe Degeneration. 
In dealing with the Hermit-crab, in. short, 
we are dealing with a case of physiological 
_ backsliding. That the creature has lost any- 
thing by this process from a practical point of 
view is not now argued. It might fairly be 
_ shown, as already indicated, that its freedom 
is impaired by its cumbrous eko-skeleton, and 
that, in contrast with other crabs, who lead a 
free and roving life, its independence generally 
is greatly limited. But from the physiological 
standpoint, there is no question that the 
Hermit tribe have neither discharged their 
; a to Nature nor tothemselves. 1: 
_ the end of life is merely to escape death, and 
"serve themselves, possibly they have done 
well; but if it is ‘to attain an ever- -increasing 

oe then are they backsliders indeed. 
A zoologist’s verdict would be that by this 


















act they have forfeited to s 
place in the animal scale. An ani 
as low or high according as it is adap’ d 
er more complex conditions of life. This is — 
the true standpoint from which to judge all 
living organisms. “Were perfection merely a 
matter of continual eating and drinking, the ~ 
Ameeba—the lowest known organism—might 
take rank with the highest, Man, for the one 
nourishes itself and savyes..its skin almost as 
completely as the other. But judged by the — 
higher standard of Complexity, that is, by 
greater or lesser adaptation to more or less ~ 
complex conditions, the gulf between them is — 
nfinite. TD et 
We have now received a preliminary idea, — 
although not from the study ofa true parasite, 
of the essential principles involved in a 
sitism. And we may proceed to point out the 
correlative in the moral and spiritual spheres. 
We confine ourselves for the present to one 
point. The differenee between the Herniit- 
erab and a true parasite is, that the former 
has acquired a semi-parasitie habit only with — 
reference to safety. It may be thatthe Hermit — 
devours as a preliminary oe accommodating 


Sy Ne AS eee 


motluse whose tenement it covets ; but it woula 
become a rea! parasite only on the supposition 
that the whelk was of sueh size as to keep © 
providing for it throughout Jife, and that the 

external and internal organs of the crab should 
disappear, while it lived henceforth, by sim=pls 
imbibition, upon the elaborated ‘ace of its | 
host.” All the molluse provides, however, for 


ere: 





rdingly, in the mean tie we ‘limit our Ce 
lication t to this. _ The true parasite presents 


i 


nd the oa peeaes of the ie 
he spiritual principle to be illustrated in 
é€ meantime stands thus: Any principle 
“which secures the safety of the individual with- 
t personal efortor the vital exercise of fac- 
is disastrous to moral character. We do. 
begin by attempting to define words, 
ere we to define truly what is meant by 
ufety or salvation, we should be spared further 
elaboration, and the law would stand outasa | 
sententious commonplace. But we have to — 
eal with the ideas of safety as these are popu- 
larly held, and the chief purpose at this stage. 
is to expose what may be called ‘the Parasitic 
octrine of Salvation. The phases of religious 
*xperience about to be described may be un- 
known to many. It remains for those whoare 
familiar with the religious conceptions of the 
asses to determine whether or not we art 
rasting words. | HS 
What is meant by the Parasitic Doctrine OL aye 
alyation one may, perhaps, best explain by 
cetching two of its-leading types. .The first 
he doctrine of the Church of Rome; the 
cond, that represented by the narrower Evan- 
elical Religion. We take these religions, 
wever, not in their ideal form, with which 
ossibly we should have little quarrel, butin 








316 ~ SEMI-PARASIT: 


their practical working, or in "\ form i Aes 
they are held especially by the rank and file 
of those who belong respectively to these com- 
munions. For the strength or weakness of 
any religious system is best judged from the 
form in which it presents itself to, and influ- 
ences the common mind. 

No more perfect-or more sad example of 
semi-parasitism exists than in the case of those 
illiterate thousands who, scattered everywhere . 
throughout the habitable globe, swell the lower 
ranks of the Church of. Rome. Had an organ- 
ization been specially designed, intleed, to im- 
duce the parasitic habit in the souls of men, 
nothing better fitted to its disastrous end 
could be established than the system of Roman 
Catholicism. Roman Catholicism offers to 
the masses a molluscan shell. They haye 
simply to shelter themselves within its pale 
and they are “safe.” But what is this 
“safe”? It is an external safety—the safety 
of an institution. It is a salvation recom- 
mended to men by all that appeals to the 

* motives in most common use with the vulgar 
and the superstitious, but which has as little 
vital connection with the individual soul as the 
dead whelk’s shell with the living Hermit. 
Salvation is a relation at once vital, personal, 
and spiritual. This is mechanical and purely 
external. And this is of course the final secret 
of its marvellous success and world-wide 
power. A cheap religion is the desideratum 
of the human heart; and an assurance of sal- 
vation at the smallest possible cost forms the 





a 


eC Meg ee ee 


—a~ 


wv 


ee ee ye ae 


ity Se 


a4 lead} in Cy we 







SEMI-PARASITISM. 317 


ee { 
- tempting bait held out to a conscience-stricken 
' world by the Romish Church. - Thousands, 
_ therefore, who have never been taught to use 
“their faculties in “working out theiz own 
‘i  galvation,” thousands who “will not’ exercise 
_ themselves religiously, and who yet cannot be 
2 without the exercises of religions, intrust them- 
peelves in idle faith to that venerable house of 
' refuge which for centuries has stood between 
God and man. A Church which has harbored 
_ generations of the elect, whose archives en- 
shrine the names of saints, whose foundations 
are consecrated with martyrs’ blood—shall it 
“not afford a sure asylum for any soul which 
would make its peace with God? So, as the 
Hermit into the molluscan shell, creeps the 
poor soul within the pale of Rome, seeking, 
like Adam in the garden, to hide its naked- 
: ness from God. 


os 


Why does the true lover of men restrain not 
‘his lips in warning his fellows against this 
/ and all other priestly religion ? It is not be- 
cause he fails to see the prodigious energy of 
the Papal See, or to appreciate the many noble 
types of Christian manhood nurtured within 
itspale. Nor is it because its teachers are often 
corrupt and its system of doctrine inadequate 
‘as a representation of the Truth—charges 
which have to be made more or less against 
all religions. But it is because it ministers 
falsely to the deepest need of man, reduces the 
end of religion to selfishness, and offers safety 
without spirituality. That these, theoretically, 
are its pretensions, we do not affirm; but that 


& 
- 
j 
k 










es 





318 SEMI-PAR 





in its wor st forse ms, the variates pees | 
fied by results. No one who has studied the 
religion of the Continent upon the spot, has 
failed to'be i impressed with the appalling spec- ~ 
tacle of tens of thousands of unregenerate 
men sheltering themselves, as they conceive it 
for Eternity, behind the Sacraments of Rome. 
There is no stronger evidence of the inborn 
parasitic tendency in man in things religious — 
than the absolute complacency with which 
even cultured men will hand over their eternal - 
interests to the care of a Chureh. We can 
never dismiss from memory the sadness with 
which we once listened to the confession ofa ~ 
certain foreign professor: “I used to be coli- 


, 


_ cerned about. religion,” he said in substance, 


“but religion is a great subject. I was very 
busy; there was little time to settle it for my- 
self. A Protestant, my attention was called to 
the Roman Catholic religion. Itsuited my case. 
And instead of dabbling in religion for myself f 
put myselfin its hands. Oncea year,” he con- 
cluded, “I go to mass.” These were the words 
of one whcese work will live-in the history of his 
country, one, too, who knew all about paia- 
tism. Yet, though he thought it not, this is 
parasitism in its worst and most degrading 
form. Nor,in spite of its intellectual, not to 
say moral sin, is this an extreme or exceptional © 
case. It is a case which is beimg duplicated 
every day in our own country, only here the — 
confession is expressed with a candor which 
is rare in company with actions betraying se — 
signally the want of *t. ‘2aee 


t é 





The form: of parasitism exhibited by a cer- 
1in section of the narrower Evangelical school 
: s altogether different from that of the Church 
f Rome. The parasite in this case seeks its 
falter; not in a Church, but in a Doctrine orz 
‘reed. Let it be observed again that we are 
“not dealing with the Evangelical Religion, but 
ly with one of its parasitic forms—a form 
aich will at once be recognized by all who — 
ow the popular Protestantism of this coun- 
try. We confine ourselves also at present ta 
that form which finds its encouragement in a 
‘ingle doctrine, that doctrine being a Doctrine — 
the Atonement—let us say, rather, a per- 
erted form of this central truth. : 
_ The perverted Doctrine of the Atonement, 
which tends to beget the parasitic habit, may 
e defined ina single sentence—it is very much 
cause it can be defined in a single sentence 
hat it is a perversion. Let us state it in a 3 
onerete form. It is put to the individual in — 
e following syllogism ¢ “ You believe Christ 
died, for sinners; you area sinner; therefore _ 


hrist died for yous and hence you are saved™ 


“Now what is this- put another species of mol- 
auscan shell? Could any trap for a benighted — 
soul be more ingeniously planned? It is not 
Superstition that is appealed to this time; itis _ 
ison. The agitated soul is invited to. creep” 
“into the convolutions of a syllogism, and en- 
rench itself behind a Doctrine more venerable 
ven than the Church. But words are mere 
ine. Doctrines may have no more vital _ 
mtact with the soul than priest or sacrament. 








320 SEML-PA RASITIS , 


no further influence on life avid es Rian 


stone and lime. And yet the apostles of par- 
asitism pick a blackguard from the streets, 
pass him through this plausible formula, and 
turn him out aconyertin the space of as many 
minutes as it takes to tell it. 

The zeal of these men, assuredly, is not to be 
questioned ; their instinets are right, and their 
work is often not in vain. It is possible, too, 
up to a certain point, to defend this Salvation 
by Formula. Are these not the very words of 
Scripture? Did not Christ Himself say, “ Itis 
finished”? And is it not written, “By grace 
are ye saved through faith,” “Not of works, 
lest any man should boast, and He « that be- 
lieveth on the Son hath everlasting life”? To 
which, however, one might also answer in the 
words of Scripture, “ The Devils also believe,” 
and “ Except a man be born again he cannot 
see the Kingdom of God.” But without seem- 
ing to make text refute text, let us ask rather 
what the supposed convert possesses at the 
end of the process. That Christ saves sinners, 


even blackguards from the street, is a great . 


fact; and that the simple words of the street 
evangelist do sometimes bring this home to 
man .with convincing power is also a fact. 


But in ordinary circumstances, when the in- — 
quirer’s mind is rapidly urged through the 


various stages of the above piece of logic, heis 
left to face the future and blot out the past 
with a formula of words. 

To be sure these words may already conve ae 
x germ of truth, they may yet be filled in wi 


ow a oo 


hl 






, SEMI-PARASITISM. 321 
babi wealth Bt meaning and become a lifelong 
power. But we would state the case against 
‘Salvation by Formula with ignorant and 
unwarranted clemency did we for a moment 
convey the idea that this is always theactualre- _ 
sult. The doctrine plays too wellinto the hands — 
of the parasitic tendency to make it possible 
that in more than a minority of cases the result 
is anything but disastrous. And it is disastrous 
not in that, sooner or later, after losing half their 
lives, those who rely on the naked syllogism 
come to see their mistake, but in that thou- 
sands never come to see it all. Are there not 
- men who can proye to you and to the world, > 
by the irresistible logic of text, that they are 
saved, whom you know to be not only unworthy 
of the Kingdom of God—which we all are—but 
absolutely incapable of entering it? The con- 
_ dition of membership in the Kingdom of God 
* is well known; who fulfil this condition and 
_ whedo not, is not well known. And yet the 
moral test, in spite of the difficulty of its appli- 
_ cations, will always, and rightly, be preferred 
' _ by the world to the theological. Nevertheless, 
*- in spite of the world’s verdict, the parasite is 
- content. He is “safe.” Years ago his mind 
_ worked through a certain chain of phrases in 
__ which the words “ believe” and “ saved” were : 
_ the conspicuous terms. And from that mo- 
‘ment, by all Scriptures, by all logic, and by all 
¥ ‘theology, his future was guaranteed. He took i 
_ out, in short, an insurance policy, by which he 
was int allibly secured eternal life at death. 
_ This is not a matter to make light of. We 
; 21 


PO of PRO eS ee A ee Se a a pe nn Bi: 
























_ of the Narrow Church in asserting t at in 












SzZ CEml1-PARASIT.. 


wish we were caricaturing instead of 
ing things as they are. But we carry 
all who intimately know the spiritu 


cases at least its members have nothing more 
to show for their religion than a formula, a — 
syllogism, a cant phrase, or an experience of 
some kind which happened long ago, and whie 
men told them at the time was ealled Salyation. — 
Need we proceed to formulate objections to the 
parasitism of Evangelicism? Between it and 
the Religion of the Church of Rome there isan 
affinity as real as it is unsuspected, Forone 
thing these religions are spiritually disastrous — 
as well as theologically erroneous in propagat- 
ing a false conception of Christianity. The 
fundamental idea- alike of the extreme ivan 


Catholic and extreme Evangelical Reli 


Hscape. Man’s chief end is to “ get off.” mare And. 
all factors in religion, the highest and most 
sacred, are degr aded to this level. God, for 
example, is a Great Lawyer. Or he is the Al- » 
mighty Enemy; it is from Him we have to 
“get off.” Jesus Christ is the One who gets 
us off—a theological figure who contrives so to 
adjust matters federally that the way is clear. 
The Church in the one instance is a kind of 
conveyancing office where the transaction is 
duly concluded, each party accepting the other’s 
terms ; in the other case, a species of sheep-pen 
where the flock awaits impatiently and indo- 
lently the final consummation. Generally, the _ 
means are mistaken for the end, and the,open- 


_ Ing up of the p ‘ssibility of spiritual grower, be: 


eomes the signal to ston growing. 










Second, these being cheap religions, are in- 
__ evitably accompanied by-a cheap life. Safety 
_ being guaranteed from the first, there remains 
_ nothing else to be done. The mechanical way 
__ in which the transaction is effected, leaves the 
soul without stimulus, and the character re- 
- mains untouched by the moral aspects of the 
- sacrifice of Christ. He who is unjust is unjust 
f still; he who is unholy is unholy still. Thus 
; the whole scheme ministers to the Degeneration 
- of Organs. For here, again, by just as much as 
f> the organism borrows mechanically from an 
£f external source, by so much exactly does it 
- lose in its own organization. Whatever rest 
& is provided by Christianity for the children of 
> God, it is certainly never contemplated that it 
4 should supersede personal effort. And any 
rest which ministers to indifference is immoral 
and unreal—it makes parasites and net men, 
~~ Just because God worketh in him, as the evi- 
~ dence and triumph of it, the true child of God 
works out his own salvation—works it out hav- 
ing really received it—not as a light thing, a 
superfluous labor, but with fear and trembling 

_. 4s a reasonable and indispensable service. 


A 














’ saved or shall he not, the answer is that the 
idea of salvation conveyed by the question 
_-makes a reply all but hopeless: But if by 
_ salvation is meant, a trusting in Christ in order 
_ to likeness to Christ, in order to that holiness 
__ without which no'man shall see the Lord, the re- 
ply is that the parasite’s hope is absolutely vain. 
_ So far from ministering to growth, parasitism 
it . 


Jé it be asked, then, shall the parasite be 









 SEME-PARASITISM. se 






SEM1-PARASITISM, 






B + Mn 
‘ministers to decay. So far from mi: 
to holiness, that is to wanes itism 
ministers to exactly the opposite. e by one 
the spiritual faculties droop and die, one by 
one from lack of exercise the muscles of the — 
soul grow weak and flaccid, ong by one the — 
moral activities cease. So from him that hath 
not, is taken away that which he hath, and 
after a few years of parasitism there is noth- — 
ing left to save. De ae 

If our meaning up to this point has been” 
sufficiently obscure to make the objection now 
possible that this protest against Parasitism is _ 
opposed to the doctrines of Free Grace, we 
cannot hope in a closing sentence to free the 
argument from a suspicion so ill-judged. The 
adjustment between Faith and Works does” 
not fall within our province now. Salvation 
truly is the free gift of God, but he who really 
knows how much this means knows—and just 
because it means so much—how much of conse- 
quent action it involves. With the central 
doctrines of grace the whole scientific argu- 
ment is in too wonderful harmony to be found 
wanting here. The natural life, not less than 
the eternal, is the gift of God. But life in 
either case is the beginning of growth and not 
the end of grace. To pause where we should 
begin, to retrograde where we should advanee, 
to seek a mechanical security that we may 
cover inertia and find a wholesale salvation in 
which there is no personal sanetification—this 
is Parasitism. hg Sh 


oe 





e756 eye 
StS Tea S his 
Oe PE Ia lc, 


at ( 
- 


A Ns ha 
city 










‘To entry, and tind ithard 
To bea Cristian, < Ctam 





— 
Fale 


* 


ae 
=F 


Oia oie ee) et eit 


s 


oo 






i 
a 
“ 


- eyes, nor mouth, nor throat, nor stomach, nor — 


. PARASITISM. 


’ “ Work out your own salvation.””—Paul. 


‘* Be no Jonger a chaos, but a World, or even World- 
kin. Produce! Produce! Were it but the pitifullest 
infinitesimal fraction of a Product, produce it, in God’s 
name !’’—Carlyle. 


, 


From a study of the habits and organization 
of the family of Hermit-crabs we have already 
gained some insight into the nature and effects 
- of parasitism. But the Hermit-crab, be it re 
~membered, is in no real sense a parasite. And 
before we can apply the general principle 
further we must address ourselves briefly to 
the examination of a true case of parasitism. 
We have not far toseek. Within the body 4 
of the Hermit-crab a minute organism may | 
frequently be discovered resembling, when, 
magnified, a miniature kidney-bean. A bunch 
of root-like processes hangs from one side, and ~ 
the extremities of these are seen to ramify in~ 
_ delicate films through the living tissues of the_ 
crab. This simple organism is known to the 
naturalist as a Sacculina; and though a full- 
grown animal, it consists of no more parts than 
those just named. Not a trace of structure is — 
_to be detected within this rude and all but in- 
animate frame; it poSsesses neither legs, nor . % 









§ ie 





328 PARASITISM., — 
any priek organs, external: or interii: 

Sacculina is a ty pieal parasite. By means of 
its twining and theftuous roots it imbibes - 
automatically its nourishment ready-prepared 
from the body of the crab. It boards indeed 
entirely at the expeuse of its host, who supplies 
it liberally with food and shelter and every- 
thing else it wants. So far as the result to 
itself is concerned this arrangement may seem — 
at first sight satisfactory enough ; but when we — 
inquire: into the life history of this small 
creature we unearth a career of degeneracy all 
but unparalleled in nature. 

The most certain clue to what nature meant 
any animal to become is to be learned from its 
embryology. Let us, therefore, examine for a 
moment the earliest positive stage in the de- 
velopment of the Sacculina. When the embryo 
first makes its appearance it bears not the re- 
motest resemblance to the adult animal. A 
different name even is given toit by the biologist, 
who knows it at this period as a Nauplius. This 
minute organism has an oval body, supplied 
with six well-jointed feet by means of which 
it paddles briskly through the water. For a 
time it leads an active and independent life, in- 
dustriously securing its own food and escap- 
ing enemies by its own gallantry. But soon a 
change takes place. The hereditary taint of 
parasitism is in its blood, and it proceeds to 
adapt itself to the pauper habits of its race. 
The tiny body first doubles in-upon itself, and 
from the two front limbs elongated filaments 
pretrude. Its four hind limbs entirely Zis- 











. soot PAKASIFISM. a 
appear, and: twelve short-forked swimming 


strangely metamorphosed the Sacculina sets out 
- in search of asuitable host, and in an evil hour, — 
by that fate which is always ready to accom- 
_  modate the transgressor, is thrown into the 
 eompany of the Hermit-crab. With its two 
filamentary processes—which afterwards’ de- 
velop into the root-like organs—it penetrates 
the body; the sac-like form is gradually as- 


‘organs temporarily take their place. Thus — 


r sumed ; the whole of the swimming feet drop 


off,—they will never be needed again,—and 
the animal settles down for the rest of its life 

as a parasite. 
One reason which makes a zoologist certain 
: that the Sacculina is a degenerate type is, that 
in almost all other instances of animals which ~ 
begin life in the Nauplius-form—and there are 
_ several—the Nauplius develops through higher 
__ and higher stages, and arrives finally at the 
ey high perfection displayed by the .shrimp, lob- 
__ ster, crab, and other crustaceans. But instead — 
' 


of rising to its opportunities, the sacculine 


Nauplius having reached a certain ena turned — 
back. It shrunk from the struggle for life, ané 
beginning probably by seeking shelter from its 

7 host went on to demand its food ; and so fall- 
2 ing from bad to worse, became in time an entire: 
_ dependant. 

In the eyes of Nature this was a twofold 
crime. It was first a disregard of evolution, 
and second, which is practically the same thing, . 
an evasion of the great law of work. And the 

' revenge of Nature was therefore necessary. 















>. 7330 PARASITIS. 


‘Zt could not help punishing the 
‘wielated law, and ‘the punishmen 
Ge the strange and noteworthy way | 
INabure usually punishes, was meted ow 
taxibaral processes, carried on within it 
organization. Its punishment was simply 
it was a Sacculina—that it was a Sacculina 
when it might have been a’ Crustacean: In 
stead of being a free and inde oe 
high in structure, original in action, vital wi 
energy, it deteriorated intoa torpid and all but 
amorphous sac confined to perpetual imprison- 
ament and doomed toa living death, “ Any net 
_ set of conditions,” says Ray Lankester, * oc 
. -eurring to an animal which renderitsfood and 
safety very easily attained, seem. to lead asa 
tule to degeneration ; just as an active healthy 
man sometimes degenerates when he becomes. 
suddenly possessed of a fortune; oras Kome 
elegenerated when possessed of the riches of 
the ancient world. The habit ‘of parasitism 
clearly acts upon animal organization in this” 
way. Ict the parasitic life once he secured, 
cand away go’ legs, jaws, eyes, and ears; the 
~ active; highly-gifted crab, insect, or annelid 
‘a may become « mere sac, absorbing nourishmert 
'- wand laying eges.”? ° he ae ea” 
Thore could be no more impressive illustra- 
_. ‘jon than this of what with entire appropriate; 
_ | mess one might ca]l “the physiology of hack- 
; @liding.” We fail to appreciate the meaning” 
ff spiritual degeneration or detect the terrible — 4 

























“g 


“8% Degeneration,” by E. Ray Lankester, p. 33. — ‘gs i 





4 consequences only because they 
de the eye of sense. But could we investi- 
gate the spirit as a living organism, or study 
the soul of the backslider « on principles of com. 
parative anatomy, we should have a revelation — 
f the organic effects of sin, even of the mere © 
sh. of carelessness as to growth and. work, 
which must revolutionize our ideas of practi: 
cal religion. There is no room for the doubt 
even that what goes .on in the body does nok 
with equal certainty take place in the spirit 
under the corresponding conditions. 
The penalty of backsliding is not something 
qiireal and vague, some unknown quantity 9) 
which may be measured out to us dispropor- — 
_tionately, or which perchance, since God is 
good, we may altogether evade...The con-) 
sequences are nlready marked within the — 
structure of the soul. So to speak, they are 
physiological. The thing affected by our in. 
differ ence or by our indulgence is nob Dey book 


















































z its 
|. 


ais 





aa 





soul. The punishment of Gesonaraun’ is sim- 
_ ply degeneration—the loss of functions, the 
_ decay of organs, the atrophy of the spiritual | 
nature. It is well known that the recovery . 
of the backslider is one of the hardest prob- 
lems in spiritual work. To reinvigorate an ©” 
old organ seems more difficult and hopeless 
than to develop a new one; and the back. 
slider’s terrible lot is to have to retrace with | 
enfeebled feet each step of the way along. 
which he strayed; to make up inch by inch 
vey he has lost, carrying ‘with, him bat 








af 

















ry 


4 


ig 


at RES 


a 


< 


Pe Oe es SL ee ee ee 


Viens Ne 


— 


= 









PARASITIS} uM. 


dead-weigit of acquired relates stat 
knowing whether to be stimulated or dis- 
courazed | by the oppressive memory of the ‘pre- 
‘ vious Fak. . 

We are not, however, to discuss at present | 
the physiology of backsliding. ‘Nor need we 
point out at greater length that parasitismis 
always and indissolubly accompanied by de- 
generation. We wish rather to examine oe . | 
or two leading tendencies of the modern re-— 
ligions life w hich directly or indirectly induce 
the parasitic habit and bring upon thousands — 
ef unsuspecting victims such secret and ap- 
palling penalties as have been named. 

Two main causes are known to the biologist 
as tending to induce the parasitic habit. These 
are, first, “the temptation to segure safety with- 
‘out the vital exercise of faculties, and, second, 
the disposition to find food without earning it. 
The first, which we have formally considered, 
is probably the preliminary stage in most 
eases. The animal, seeking shelter, finds un- 
expectedly that it can also thereby gain a cer- 
tain measure of food. Compelled in the first 
Gnstance, perhaps by stress of circumstances, 
te rob its host of a meal or perish, it gradually 
acquires the habit of drawing all its supplies 
from the same. source, and ‘thus becomes in 
time a confirmed parasite. Whatever be its 
origin, however, it is certain that the main evil 
of parasitism is connected with the further 
question of food. Mere safety with Nature is 
a secondary, though by no means an imsignifi- 
eant, consideration. And while the organism 
















ee Lab ag enemies Sich demands no per- 
sonal effort, the most entire degeneration of - 





of the functions of nutrition. 
The direction in which we have to seek the 
‘wider application of the subject will now ap- 
We have to look into those cases in the 
pr pera and spiritual sphere in which the fane- 
tions of nutrition are either neglected or abused. 
A To sustain life, physical, mental, moral, or 
spiritual, some sort of food is essential. Te 
‘secure an adequate supply each organism alsa 
i is provided with special and appropriate facul- 
ties. But the final gain to the organism does - 
not depend so much on the actual amount of 
- food procured as on the exercise required to_ 
_ obtain it. In one sense the exercise is only a 
means to an end, namely, the finding food; 
_ but in another and equally real sense, the ex- 
ercise is the end, the food the means to attain. 
‘that. Neither is of permanent use without 
















is more necessary than the other. Without 






_ cise food is useless. 
_ Thus exercise is in order to food, and food” 
is in order to exercise—in order especially to 









easily acquired means food without that ac- 
companiment of discipline which is infinitely — 
be ae er a than the food itself. It means 






‘the whole system follows the neglect or abuse, hes a 


the other, but the correlation between themis 
so intimate that it were idle to say that one © 


food exercise is impossible, but without exer- 


that further progress and maturity which only | ¥ 
ceaseless activity can promote. Now foodtoo ~ 
















©. 834 PARASITISM. 


the possibility of a life which is a mere_ 
ence. It leaves the organism peta, ( 
undeveloped, immature, low in the cale | 
organization and with a growing tendency to 
pass from the state of equilibrium to that of 
‘increasing degeneration. What an,organism ~~ 
is depends upon what it does; its' activities 
make it. And if the stimulus to the exercise 

' of all the innumerable faculties concerned ~~ 
- in nutrition be withdrawn by the conditions ~~ 
- and circumstances of life becoming, or being __ 
made to become, too easy, there is first an ar- 
rest of development, and finally a loss of the 

_ parts themselves. If, in short, an organism ~ 
_» does nothing in that relation itis nothing, =~ 

We may, therefore, formulate the general 
principle thus: Any principle which secures 
food to the individual without the expenditure 
of work is injurious, and accompanied by the, 
degeneration and loss of parts. ‘ 

The social and political analogies of this law, 
which have been casually referred to already, — 
are sufficiently familiar to render any further 
development in these directions superfluous. — 

» After the eloquent preaching of the Gospel of — 
Work by Thomas Carlyle, this century at least 
ean never plead that one of the most impor- 
fant moral bearings of the subject has not 
been duly impressed upon it. AN that can be 
said of idleness generally might be fitly urged ~ 
in support of this great practical truth. All — 
nations which have prematurely passed away, 
buried in graves dug by their own effeminacy ; 
all those individuals who have secured a hasty 


4 























wealth by the taared of speculation ; all chit. 
ren of fortune ; all victims of inheritance ; ald 
cial sponges ; ‘all satellites of the court; ale 
eggars of the market- place—all these are 
‘living and unlying witnesses to the unaltera- 
ey ale, retributions of the law of parasitism. But 
it is when we come to study the working of 
the principle in the religious sphere that we 
discover the full extent of the ravages which 
the parasitic habit can make on the souls. of. 
men. We can only hope to indicate here one — 
or two of the things in modern Christianity 
which minister most subtly and widely to this big 
as yet all but unnamed sin. 

_ We begin in what may seem a somewhat 
unlooked-for quarter. One of the things i 
the religious world which tends most strongly 
to induce the parasitic habitis Going to Church. 
Church-going itself every Christian willrightly 
consider an inyaluable aid to the ripe develop. — 
ment of the spiritual life. Public worship has 
‘a place in the national religious life so firmly —/¥ 
established that nothing is ever likely to shake | 
_ its influence. So supreme, indeed, is the ec-— 
. Clesiastical system in all Christian countries. 
that with thousands the religion of the Church 
and the religion of the individual are one.’ But. 
just because of its high and unique place ims @ 
religious regard, does it become men from time 9 @ 
_ to time to inquire how far the Church is really : 
> engi to the spiritual health of the im- 
se religious community which looks to it- 
ts foster-mother. And if it falls to us here 
ctantly to expose ome secret abuses of 






















ts 



























f 


ae 








lh 
of 
te 
, 
£ 
a 
oe 
‘el 
x 





336 PARASITISM. 


} a Fan ix 
this venerable system, let it be well under- © 
stood that these are abuses, and not that the 
sacred institution itself is being violated by 


the attack of an impious hand. 
The danger of church-going largely depends 
on the form of worship, but it may be affirmed 
that even the most perfect Chureh affords to 
all worshippers a greater or less temptation 
to parasitism. It consists essentially in the 


_deputy-work or deputy-worship inseparable’ 


from church or chapel ministrations. One man 
is set apart to prepare a certain amount of 
spiritual truth for the rest. He, if heis a true 
man, gets all the benefits of original work. 
He finds the truth, digests it, is nourished and 
enriched by it before he offers it to his flock. 
To a large extent it will nourish and enrich in 
turn a number of his hearers. But still they 
will lack something. The faculty of selecting - 
truth at first hand and appropriating it for 
one’s self-is a lawful possession to every Chris- 
tian. Rightly exercised it conveys to him 
truth in its freshest form; it offers him the 
opportunity of verifying doctrines for himself; 
it makes religion personal; it deepens and in- 
tensifies the only convictions that are worth 
deepening, those, namely, which are honest ; 
and it supplies the mind with a basis of cer- 
tainty in religion. But if all one’s truth is 


derived by imbibition from the Church, the 


faculties for receiving truth are not onl 
undeveloped but one’s whole view of trut 
becomes distorted. He who abandons theper- 


_ sonal search for truth, under whatever pre- 










"+ PARASITISM, 





text, abandons truth, The very word truth, 
by becoming the limited possession of a guild, 
eases to have any meaning; and faith, which 
can only be founded on truth, gives way to 
- eredulity, resting on mere opinion. 
_ In those churches especially where all parts 
of the worship aresubordinated to the sermon, 
this species of parasitism is peculiarly encour- 
-aged. What is meant to be a stimulus to 
thought becomes the substitute for it. The 
- hearer never really learns, he only listens. 
And while truth and know ledge seem to in- 
crease, life and character are Teft in arrear. 
Such truth, of course, and such knowledge, 
are a mere seeming. Having cost nothing, 
they come to nothing. The organism acquires 
a growing immobility, and finally exists ina 
state of entire- intellectual helplessness and 
inertia. So the parasitic Church-member, the 
- literal “adherent,” comes not merely to live 
k only within the circle of ideas of his minister, 
- but to be content that his minister has these 
ideas—like the literary parasite who fancies 
_heknows everything because he has a good 
_dibrary. 
; Where the worship, again, is largely liturgi- 
eal the danger assumes an even more serious 
form, and it acts in some such way as this. 
wevery sincere man who sets out in the Chris- 
_ tian race begins by attezupting to exercise the 
- spiritual faculties for himself. The young life 
_ throbs in his veins, and he sets himself to the 
further progress with earnest purpose and 
Bees clute will. For a time he bids fair te 
Wi 































the temptation to relax the al 
effort at spirituality is greater’ thé 
The “ carnal mind” itself is “ enmit 
God,” and the antipathy, or the d 
apathy within, is unexpectedly encor 
from that very outside source from whie' 
anticipates the greatest help. Connecting 
self with a Church he is no less interested f1 
surprised to find how rich is the provis 
there for every part of his spiritual nat 
Each service satisfies or surfeits. Twice, or 
even three times a week, this feast is spread 
for him. The thoughts are deeper than his 
own, the faith keener, the worship loftier, : 
whole ritual more reverent’ and splend 
What more natural than that he should | 
ually exchange ‘his personal religion for 
of the congregation? What more lkely 
that a public religion should by imsensib 
stages supplant his individual faith? What ~ 
more simple than to content himself with the — 
warmth of another’s soul? What more tempt- — 
ing than to give up private prayer for, the 
easier worship of the liturgy or of the church? 
What, in short, more natural than for the in- — 
dependent, free-moving, growing Sacculina to — 
degenerate into the listless, useless, pampered — 
parasite of the pew? ‘The very means he © 
takes to nurse his personal religion often come | 
in time to wean him from it.. Hanging admir-— : 

j 


















ingly, or even enthusiastically, on the lips of 
eloquence, his senses now stirred by ceremony, 
now soothed by music, the parasite of the pew » 









his weekly worship—his character un- 
d, his will unbraced, his crude soul un- 
skened and unimproved. Thus, instead of 
ministering to the growth of individual mem- 
‘bers, and very often just in proportion to the 
then by excellence of the provision made for 


5 






them by another, does this gigantic system of 
leputy-nutrition tend to destroy development 
and arrest the genuine culture of the soul, 
Our churches overflow with members who are 
‘mere consumers. Their interest in religion is 
‘purely parasitic. Their only spiritual exercise 
is the automatic one of imbibition, the clergy- 
“man being the faithful Hermit-crab who is to 
be depended on every Sunday for at least a 
_ week’s supply. 
_A physiologist would describe the organism 
resulting from such a process as a case of 
arrested development.” Instead of having 
learned to pray, the ecclesiastical parasite be- 
mes satisfied with being prayed for. His 
ansactions with the Eternal are effected by. 
mmission. Iis work for Christ is done by 
a paid deputy. His whole life is a prolonged 
dulgence in the bounties of the Church; and 
urely—in some cases at least the crowning 
my—he sends for the minister when he lies 
down to die.’ 
 Otker signs and consequences of this species 
arvasitism soon become very apparent, The_ 
rst symptom is idleness. When a Church is - 
its true diet it is off its true work. Hence 
planation of the hundreds of large and 
mtial congregations ministered to from 





Bc 






























e 
Sadi 
in’ 
‘i 
* 
Po 
‘ 

ba 
- 





340 PARASITE: 


week to week by men. of eminentlea: 


earnestness, which yet do little or nothing in — 


the line of these special activities for which all 


churches exist. An outstanding man at the ~ 


head of a huge, useless and torpid congregation 
is alwaysa puzzle. But is the reason not this, 


that the congregation gets too good food too” 
cheap? Providence has mercifully delivered 


the Church from too many great men in her 


pulpits, but there are enough in every country- 


¥ 
»J 






») 


side to play the host disastrously to a large 


circle of otherwise able-bodied Christian people, 


who, thrown_on their own resources, might 
fatten themselves and help others. There are 
compensations to a flock for a poor minister 


after all. Where the fare is indifferent those 
who are really hungry will exert themselves to. 


procure their own supply. 

That the Church has indispensable functions 
to discharge to the individual is not denied; 
but taking into consideration the univers 
tendency to parasitism in the human soul, it 


is a grave question whether in some eases it 


does not really effect more harm than good. 
A dead church certainly, a church haying no 
reaction on the community, a church without 


propagative power in the world, cannot be other _ 


than a calamity to all within its borders. Such 
a church is an institution, first for making, 


then for screening parasites; and instead of 


representing to the world the Kingdom of God 
on earth, it is despised alike by godly and by 
godless men as the refuge for fear and for- 
malism and the nursery.of superstition. 


- PARASITISM. 


d this suggests a second and not less 
ctical evil of a parasitic piety—that it 
resents to the world a false conception of the 
‘Yeligion of Christ. One notices with a fre- 
_ queney which may well excite alarm that the 
hildren of church-going parents often break 
way as they grow in intelligence, not only from 
‘church-connection but from the whole system 
of family religion. Insome cases this is doubt- 
ess due to natural perversity, but in others it 
_ certainly arises from the hollowness of the out- 
ward forms which pass current in society and at 
home for vital Christianity. These spurious 
orms, fortunately or unfortunately, soon betray 
‘themselves. Wow little there is in them be- 
omes gradually apparent. And rather than 
ndulge ina sham the budding sceptic, as the 
rst step, parts with the form, and in nine 
~ eases out of ten concerns himself no further to 
‘find a substitute. Quite deliberately, quite 
honestly, ‘sometimes with real regret and even 
it personal sacrifice, he takes up his position, 
ind to his parent’s sorrow and his churech’s 
dishonor forsakes forever the faith and. re- 
igion of his fathers. Whovwill deny that this 
$ atrue account of thenatural history of much 
modern scepticism? A formal religion can 
“never hold its own in the nineteenth century. 
s better that it should not. Wemust either 
be real or cease to be. We must either give 
our Parasitism or our sons. 
_ Any one who will take the trouble to investi- 
te a number of cases, where whole families 
outwardly godly parents have gone astray, 


























fad either some palpable Joe or 





‘eriticism, dogmatism, and evangelism. With- 


essentially to the parasitic order. The 
belief that the sons of clergymen turn out 
worse than those of the laity is, of course, with. 
out foundation; but it may also probably be 
verified that in theinstances where clerg 
sons notoriously discredit their father’s: ‘minis 
try, that ministry in a majority of eases 
found to be professional and theological rather 
than human and spiritual. Sequences in th 
moral and spiritual world follow more close 
than we yet discern the great law of Heredit 
The Parasite begets the ‘Parasite—_only in 
second generation the offspring are sometimes 
sufficiently wise to make the discovery, and : 
honest enough to proclaim it. d 
We now pass on to the consideration of wae , 
other form of Parasitism which, though elosely, ~ 
related to that just discussed, is of sufficient ; 
importance to justify a separate reference. de 
Appealing to a somewhat smaller circle, but ~ 
affecting it not less disastrously, is the Para- — 
sitism induced by certain abuses of Systems of 
Theology. 
In ivs own place, of course, Theology i isno 
more to be dispensed with than the Church, 
In every perfect religious system three great — 
departments must always be represented— 


out the first there is no guarantee of truth, 
without the second no defence of truth, and 
without the third no propagation of truth. 
But when these departments becgne ae up, — 






PARA SITISM, 343 


- when their Separate functions are forgotten, 
when one is made to do duty for another, or 
where tither is developed by the church or the 
‘individual at the expense of the rest, the result 






aye is fatal. The particular abuse, however, of 
; which we have now to speak, concerns the 
Ee tendency in orthodox communities, first to exalt 
_ orthodoxy above all other elements in religion, 
"and secondly to make the possession of sound 






beliefs equivalent to the possession of truth. 

. Doctrinal preaching, fortunately, as a con- 
op | stant practice is less in vogue than in a former 
“ age, but there are still large numbers whose 
- only contact with religion is through theo- 

logical forms. The method is supported by 
: a plausible defence. What is doctrine but a 
' compressed form of truth, systematized by 
able and pious men, and sanctioned by the 
imprimatur of the Church? If the greatest 
minds of the Church’s past, having exercised 
| themselves profoundly upon the problems of 
) religion, formulated as with one voice a system 
» of doctrine, why should the humble inquirer 
Y not gratefully accept it? Why go over the 
> groundagain? Why with his dim light should 




















/ with so great a body of divinity already com- 
i ‘piled, presume himself to be still a seeker after 
_<tuth? Does not Theology give him Bible 
truth in reliable, convenient and moreoy er,” In 
logical propositions? There it lies extended 
to the last detail in the tomes of the Fathers, 
or abridged ina hundred modern compendia 
» ready-made to his hand, all cut and dry, guar- 

ed sound and wholesome, why hot use it? 





pee betake himself afresh to Bible study and ; — 





: ee So 
Rn et nN Bi Sg haa ie te sa 


"5 


LA 


ene a ee 











344 PARASITISM. 





_ Just because it is all eut ae dry. 
because it is ready-made. Just because it ties a 
there in reliable, convenient and logieal prop- — 

_ositions. The moment you appropriate truth | 
in such‘a shape you appropriate aform. You 
cannot cut and dry truth. You cannot accept ~ 
truth ready-made without it ceasing to nourish — 
the soul as truth. You cannot live on theo- © 
logical forms without becoming a Parasite and — 
ceasing to be a man. P 

There is no worse enemy to a living Church ’ 
than a propositional theology, with the latter — 
controlling the former by traditional authority. 

For one does not then receive the truth for — 
himself, he accepts it bodily. He begins the © 
Christian life set up by his Church with a ~ 
stock-in-trade which has cost him nothing, and ~ 
which, though it may serve him all his life, is ~ 
just exactly worth as much as his belief in his ~ 
Church. This possession of truth, moreover, ~ 
thus lightly won, is given to him as infallible. — 
It is asystem. There is nothing to add to it. — 
At his peril let him question or take from it. 
To start a convert in life with such a principle — 
is unspeakably degrading. All through life ~ 
instead of working towards truth he must — 
work from it. An infallible standard is a 
temptation to a mechanical faith. Infallibihty — 
always paralyzes. It gives rest; but itis the — 

rest of stagnation. Men perform one greatact | 

of faith at the beginning of their life, then haye — 
done with it forever. All moral, intellectual — 
and spiritual effort is over; anda cheap the 

Alogy ends in a cheap life. 


: 
i 
OS a 


345 


‘The same sean that makes men take refuge 
in the Church of Rome makes them take refuge 
in a set of dogmas. Infallibility meets the 
deepest desire of man, but meets it in the most 

fatal form. Men deal with the hunger after 
_ trath in two ways, ‘First by Unbelief—which 
crushes it by blind force; or, secondly, by 
resorting to some external source credited with 
-‘Infallibility—which lulls it to sleep by blind 
faith. The effect of a doctrinal theology is the 
fc effect of Infallibility. And the wholesale belief 
in such a system, however accurate it may 
_ be—grant even that it were infallible—is not 
_ Faith though it always gets that name. It is 
_ mere Credulity. It is a complacent and idle 
rest upon authority, not a hard-earned, self- 
_ obtained, personal possession. The ‘moral 
_ responsibility here, besides, is reduced to 
- nothing. Those who framed the Thirty-nine 
Articles or the Westminster Confession are 
responsible. And anything which destroys 
responsibility, or transfers it, cannot be other 
than injurious in its moral tendency and use- 
less in itself. 
_ It may be objected perhaps that this state- 
ent of the paralysis spiritual and mental 
‘induced by Infallibility applies also to the 
Bible. The answer is that though the Bible is 
infallible, the Infallibility is not in such a form 
s to become a temptation. There is the 
idest possible difference between the form of 
uth in the Bible and the form in theology. 
_ In theology truth is propositional—tied_up 
neat ieee systematized, and arranged in 































# 


Sa Ne ae ate ee Dy 


a 





at 
% 
5h 

Ase! 
Wee 
K 

id Ek 
Re 





It simply takes a man with fair - 





pCi esc as ahr 

























logical order. The Trinity i 
doctrinal problem. The Suprem 
discussed in terms of Ehiste be 


like a proposition in Euclid. 
is to be worked out as a question: C 
dence. There is no necessary ¢o 
tween these doctrines and the dife of 
holds them. They make him ortl 
necessarily righteous. They satisf 
lect but need not touch the heart. “It de e) 
in short, take a religious man to bea theologiai 


powers. This man happens to” 
powers to theological subjects—but m ni. 
sense than he mig eht apply them to as 
physics. But ty “ith in the Bible is a fo 
It is a diffused nutriment, so diffused 
one can put himself off with the for 
reached not by thinking, but by doin 
seen, discerned, not demonshrateaae I 
be bolted whole, but must be slow 
into the system. Its vagueness to & 
intellect, its refusal to be packed into p 
phrases, its satisfying unsatisfyingne 
vast atmosphere, its finding of us, its myst 
hold of us, these are the tokens ot its infinity. 
Nature never provides for man’s wants in am 

direction, bodily, mental, or spiritual, in’ ae 
.a formas that he can simply accept her -gifts 
automatically. She puts all the mechanical 
powers at his disposal—but he must make 
Never, She gives him corn, but: ‘a 
it, She elaborates coa) but he m st dig | 


Worn pam all the products of Nature are 
erfect, but he has everything to do to them 
ye he can use them. So with truth; it is 
perfect, infallible. But he cannot use it as it 
He must work, think separate, dis- 
ve, absorb, digest; and most .of these he 
must do for himself and within himself. | If it 
e replied that this is exactly what theology 
does, we answer it is exactly what it does not. 
ih Oe simply does what the greengrocer does when 
he arranges his apples and plums in his shop- 
window. He may tell me a magnum bonum 
from a Victoria, or a Baldwin from a Newton 
pin. But he doesmot help me to eat it, 
Tis information is useful, and for scientific 
horticulture essential. Should a_ sceptical 
omologist deny that there was ‘such a thing 
a Baldwin, or mistake it for a Newton Pip- 
in, we should be glad to refer to him; but 
f we were hungry, and an orchard were handy, 
we should not trouble him. Truth in the Bible 
an orchard rather than a museum. Dogma- 
-tism will be very valuable to us when scientific 
cessity makes us go to the museum. Criti- 
sm will be very useful in seeing that only 
uit-bearers grow in the orchard. But truth 
‘the doctrinal form is not natural, proper, 
similable food for the soul of man, 
Ts this a plea then for doubt? Yes, for that 
losophie doubt which is the evidence of a 
ty doing its own work. It is more neces- 
y for us to be active than to be orthodox. 




















es 


~~ 
Cras 





BSS Pa oe ee er ee 


ward fl 
a 





STE tee Ses oe 
ae ne oe 3 
SS nes spelt 


Shak > ee 


being original, by seeing with on iF 
believing with our own heart. 
says Goethe, “is death antic] 
far be burned at the stake of 
than die the living death of Parasitism. 
an aberrant theolow gy than a suppressed 01 
zation. Better a little faith dearly won, b 
launched alone on the infinite aoe a 
Truth, than perish on the splendid plenty f 
the richest creeds. Such Doubt is no 
willed presumption. Nor, truly Siete 
it prove itself, as much doubt does, the synony 
for sorrow. It aims ata lifelong learning, 
pared for any sacrifice, of will, yet for none — 
of independence; at that high progressive — 
education which yields rest in work and work — 
in rest, and the development of immortal f 
ties in both; at that deeper faith which beliey 
m the vastness and variety of the revelatio 
of God, and their accessibility to all obedie 
hearts. 




















“I judge of the order of the wo 
know not its end, because to ° c 
need mutually to compare the 
functions, their relations, and to 
I know not why the universe ( 
desist from seeing how it is mot 
to see the intimate agreement by 


I cannot perceive.” 





















2 

we 
od 
i 


CLASSIFICATION. 


a “That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that — 
which is born of the-Spirit is spirit.’’-—Cvrist. 


* 


eS 
» “In early attempts to arrangé organic beings in somc 
‘systematic manner, we see at first a guidance by conspicue 
ous and simple characters, and a tendency towards ar- 
‘rangement in linear order. In successively later at- 
tempts, we see more regard paid to combinations cf 
eharacter which are essential but often inconspicuous 5 
and a gradual abandonment of a linear arrangement."’=> 
Herbert Spencer. 


On one of the shelves in a certain museum 
lie two small boxes filled with earth. A low 
mountain in Arran has furnished the first ; the 
‘contents of the second came from the Island of 
-Barbadoes.. When examined with a pocket 
ens, the Arran earth is found to be full ot 
small objects, clear as crystal, fashioned by 
some mysterious geometry into forms of ex- 
“quisite symmetry. The substance is silica, a 
natural glass; and the prevailing shape isa 
‘six-sided prism capped at either end by little 
pyramids modelled with consummate grace. 

_ When the second specimen is examined, the 
“revelation is, if possible, more surprising 
Here, also, is a vast assemblage of small glassy 
or porcellaneous objects built up into curious 
forms. -The material, chemically, remains the 
ame, but the angles of pyramid and prism have 





Pe TNR ee ST eee ay ie ant 





CLASSIFICATION. 


on 
bo 


given place to curved lines, so that the contour 
is entirely different. Tne appearance is that — 
of a vast collection of microscopic urns, gob-— 
lets, and vases, each ricnly ornamented with — 
small sculptured discs or perforations which 
are disposed over the pure white surface in — 
regular belts and rows. Each tiny urn is 


‘chiselled into the most Iaultiess proportion, — 


and the whole presents a vision of magic 
beauty. : 

Judged by the standard of their loveliness 
there is little to choose between these two sets _ 
of objects. Yet there is one cardinal difference | 
between them. They belong to different 
worlds. The last beiong to the living world, 
the former to thc dead. The first are crystals, 
the last are shells. 

No power on earth can make these little urns 
of the Polyeystine except Life. We can melt 
them down in the laboratory, but no ingenuity 
of chemistry can reproduce their sculptured 
forms. We are sure that Life has formed 
them, however, for tiny creatures allied to those 
which made the Barbadoes’ earth are living 
still, fashioning their fairy palaces of flint in 
the same mysterious way. On the other hand, 
chemistry has no difficulty in making these 
crystals. We can melt down this Arran earth 
and reproduce the pyramids and prisms in end. 
less numbers. Nay, if we do melt it down, wa 
cannot help reproducing the pyramid and the 
prism. There is a six-sidedness, as it were, in 
the very nature of this substance which will — 
infallibly manifest itself if the crystallizing 


~ 





ne CLASSIFICATION. 353 


- substance only be allowed fair play. This six- 
sided tendency is its Law of Crystallization— 
_ a law of its nature which it cannotresist. But 
in the crystal there is nothing at all correspond. 
ing to.Life. There is simply an inherent force 
_ which can be called into action at any moment, 
and which cannot be separated from the par- 
ticles in which it resides. The crystal may be 
ground to pieces, but this force remains intact. 
And even after being reduced to powder, and 
running the gauntlet of every process in the 
chemical laboratory, the moment the substance 
is left to itself under possible conditions it will 


olycystine urn be broken, no inorganic agency 
_ ¢an build it up again. So far as any inherent 

_urn-building power, analogous to the crystal- 
line foree, is concerned, it might lie there in 
a shapeless mass forever. That which mod- 
’ elled it at first is gone from it. It was Vital; 
while the force which built the crystal was only 
_ Molecular. 
From an artistic point of view this distine- 
_ tion is of smallimportance. A%sthetically, the 
_ Law of Crystallization is probably as _ useful 
in ministering to natural beauty as Vitality. 
_ What are more beautiful than the crystals of a 
_ snowflake? Or what frond of fern or feather 
of bird can Vie with the tracery of the frost 
_ upon a window-pane? Can it be said that the 
_ lichen is more lovely than the striated crystals 
_ of the granite on which it grows, or the moss 
_ on the mountain-side more satisfying than the 
_ hidden amethyst and cairngorm in the rock 
F: 23 ; 







ba glia Bk CN 





ae to recrystallize anew. But if the » 








- terms of biology, are they living or dead? But” | 























asi 

when his. microscope reveals the architec 
of spiral tissue in the stem of a plant, oF 
mineralogist who beholds for the first ti 
chaos of beauty in the sliced specimen of some 
common stone? So far as beauty goes the 
organic world and the inorganic are one, 

To the man of science, however, this identity 
of beauty signifies nothing. His concern, in the 
first instance, is not with the forms but withthe ~ 
natures of things. Itisnovalidanswertohim, | 
when he asks the difference between the moss. 
and the cairngorm, the frost-work and the fern, 
to be assured that both are beautiful. Horno ~ 
fundamental distinction in Seience depends 
upon beauty. He wants an answer in terms ¢ 
chemistry, are they organic or inorganic ? or 


when he is told that the oneis living and the ~ 
other dead, he is in possession of a characteristic 
and fundamental scientific distinctions From: ~ 
this point of view, however much they may ~ 
possess in common of material substance and 
beauty, they are separated from one another — 
by a wide and unbridged gulf. The classifica- 
tion of these forms, therefore, depends upon ~~ 
the standpoint, and we should pronounce them ~ 
like or unlike, related or unrelated, according 
as we judged them from the point of view of 
Art or Science. cepae Os int 

The drift of these introductory paragraphs 
must already be apparent. We propose to in- 
quire whether among men, clothed apparently 
with a common beauty of character, there may 


® 





_ CLASSIFICATION. 355 


not et be distinctions as radical as, between 
Pitihe crystal and the shell; and, further, whether 
the current classification of men, based upon 
_. Moral Beauty, is wholly satisfactory either 
from the standpoint of Science or of Christian- 
ity. Here, for example, are two characters, 
pure and elevated, adorned’ with conspicuous 
virtues, stirred by lofty impulses, and com- 
manding a spontaneous adntiration from all 
“who look on them—may not this similarity of 
outward form be accompanied by a total dis- 
similarity of mward nature? Is the external 
appearance the truest criterion of the ultimaté 
nature? Or, as in the crystal and the shell, 
may there not exist distinctions more profound 
and basal? The distinctions drawn between 
men, in short, are commonly based on the out- 
ward appearance of goodness or badness, on the 
- ground of moral beauty or moral deformity— 
a is this classification scientific? Or is therea 
\ deeper distinction between/the Christian and 
: the not-a-Christian as fundamental as that 
- between the organic and the inorganic? 

% There can be little doubt, to begin with, that 
i with the great majority of people religion Is 
3 regarded as essentially one ‘with morality. 
* 


he ig ae at 


a 


a 
¥ 


Sa! oa a) 


i,” iad 


Whole schools of philosophy have treated the 


discussed its place among other systems of 
_ ethics. Even those systems of theology which 
_ profess to draw a deeper distinction have rarely 
“succeeded in establishing it upon any valid 
f« “basis, or seem even to have made that distine- 
_ tion pereeptible toothers. So little, indeed, has 







- Christian Religion as a question of beauty, and —~ 








- the rationale of the science of religion 
understood that there is still no more unsatis. 


356 en 






factory province in theology than where mor- 
ality and religion ave contrasted, and the ad-— 
justment attempted between moral phieepne 
and what are known as the doctrines of grace. — 

Examples of this confusion are so numerous — 
that if one were to proceed to proof he would — 
have to cite almost the entire European phi- — 
losophy of the last three hundred years. From 
Spinoza downward through the whole matural- 
istic school, Moral Beauty is persistently re- 
garded as synonymous with religion and the — 
Spiritual sife. The most earnest thinking of — 
the present day is steeped in the same con-— 
fusion. We have even the remarkable spec- 
tacle presented to us just now of a sublime 
Morality-Religion divorced from Christianity 
altugether, and wedded to the baldest form Ont 
materidlism. “It is claimed, moreover, that the 
moral scheme of this high atheism is loftierand — 
more perfect than that of Christianity, and — é 
men are asked to take their choice as if the 
morality were everything, the Christianity or 
the atheism which nourished it being neither 
here nor there. Others, again, stu eRe 
moral beauty carefully, have detected a some- 
thing in its Christian forms which has ¢om- ~~ 
pelled them to declare that a distinction cer- 
tainly exists. But in scarcely a single instance 
is the gravity of the distinction more than 
dimly apprehended. Few conceive Of it as 
other than a difference of degree, or could-give — 
a more definite account of it than Mr. Matth new 


Agi gek by 
ae el a eT ee 











3% Asigion is morality touched by 





he testimony of an acute mind that a dis- 





ymposium where the question as to “ The in- 
fluence upon Morality of a decline in Religious 





whom this century is justly proud, there ap- 


fathomless chasm separating the leading terms 
of debate. 
Pie) TE beauty is the criterion of religion, this 
er view of the relation of religion to morality is 
pet But what if there be the same dif- 
i erence | in the beauty of two separate characters 
that there is between the mineral and the 
- gshell?- What if there be a moral beauty anda 
* ete beauty? What answer shall we get 
'- if we demand a more scientific distinction 















standpoint of biological religion £0 say of two 
characters that both are beautiful. For, again, 
no fundamental distinction in Science depends 


biology, are they flesh or spirit; are they living 
or dead? 

Jf this is really a scientific question, if it isa 
estion not of moral’philosophy only, but of 
ology, we are compelled to repudiate beauty 


rse, meant by this that spirituality is “not 
rally beautiful. Spirituality must be morally 
‘'y beautiful—so much so that popularly one 





nine ”__an utterance significant mainly as 


— tinction of some kind does exist. Ina recent ° 


Belief,” was discussed at length by writers of 


pears scarcely so much as a recognition of the 


- between characters than that based on mere 
outward form? It is not enough from the 


upon beauty. We ask an answer in terms of © 


the criterion of spirituality. It is not, of — 




























BAS rea 
is justified in judging of religion by its beauty. _ 
Nor is it meant that morality ts not @ Grite- ~~ 
rion. All that is contended for is that, from © 
the scientific standpoint, it is not thé criterion. © © 
We can judge of the crystal and the shell from 
many other standpoints besides those named, 
each Classification having an importance in its — ~ 
own sphere. Thus we might class them ac * 
cording to their size and weight, their percent- — ~ 
age of silica, their use in the arts, or theircom- 
mercial value. Each science or art is entitled 7 
to regard them from its own point of view; | 
and when the biologist announces his classifi- ~ 
cation he does not interfere with those based ~~ 
on other grounds. Only, having chosen his  ~ 
standpoint, he is bound to frame his classifi- 
eation in terms of it, “oe ae 
It may be well to state emphatically, that ~ 
in proposing a new classification—or rather, 
in reviving the primitive one—in the spiritual A 
sphere we leave untouched, as of supreme ~ 
value in its own province, the test of morality. 
Morality is certainly a test of religion—for 
most practical purposes the very best test.” 
And so far from tending to depreciate morality, 
the bringing into prominence of the true basis 
is entirely in its interests—in the interests of 
a moral beauty, indeed, infinitely surpassing 
the highest attainable perfection on merely © 
natural lines. raat 

The warrant for seeking a further classifica- 
tion is twofold. It is a principle in science ~~ 
that. classification should rest on the most 7 
basal characteristics. To determine what 7 


ig 





cea Before the principles of classifica- 
on were understood, organisms were invaria- 
sce a tie according to some merely exter- 
Thus plants were classede: 

















a animals Seale ta to their appearance as 
Birds, Beasts, and Fishes. The Bat upon this 
principle was a bird, the Whale a fish; andso 
thoroughly artificial were these early systems _ 
that animals were often tabulated among the 
ants, and plants among the animals. “In. 
rly attempts,” says Herbert Spencer, “to ~~ 
arrange organic beings in some sy stematice. 
manner, we see at first a guidance by conspic- 
uous and simple characters, and a tendency — 
ward arrangement in/ lineal order. In suc _ 
cessively later attempts, we see more regard 
id to combinations of characters which are 
ssential but often inconspicuous; and a grad- 
ual abandonment of a linear arrangement for 
an arrangement: in divergent groups and re- 
divergent sub-groups.’ Almost all the natural 
sciences have already passed through these — 
tages ; and one or two which rested entirely — 
on external characters have all but ceased to 

ist—Conchology, for example, which has. 
elded its place to Malacology. Following im 
t e be, of the other sciences, the classifica- 



















360 CLASSIFICA TION. 


tions of Theology may have to be Bre CO 
in the same way. -The popular classification, — 


whatever its merits from a practical point of 


view, is essentially a classification based on —~ 


Mor phology. The whole tendency of science 
now is to include along with morphological — 
considerations the profounder generalizations 


of Physiology and Embryology, And the con- — 4 


tribution of the latter science especially has 
been found so important that biology hence- 
forth must look for its classification largely to 
Embryological character. 

But apart from the demand of modern scien- 
tifie culture it is palpably foreign to Christian- 
ity, not merely as a Philosophy but as a 


Biology, to classify men only in terms of the 


former. And it is somewhat remarkable that 
the writers of both the Old and New Testa- 
ments seem to have recognized the deeper — 
basis. The favorite classification of the Old — 
Testament was into “the nations which knew 
God” and “the nations which knew not God” 
—a distinction which we have formerly seen 
to be, at bottom, biological. In the New Tes- 
tament again the ethical characters are more 
prominent, but the cardinal distinetions based 


on regeneration, if not always actually referred 


to, are throughout kept in view, both in the 
sayings of Christ and in the Epistles. 


What then is the deeper ‘distinetion drawn — 


by Christianity? What is the essential differ- 
ence between the Christian and the not-a-Chris- 
tian, between the spiritual beauty andthe mor- 
al beauty ? It is the distinction between the 


































the product of the natural man, spiritual 
beauty of the spiritual man. And these two, 
according to the law of Biogenesis, are sepa- 
_ rated from one another by the deepest line 
known to Science. This Law is at once the 
foundation of Biology and of Spiritual religion. 


_ confusion if we attempt to ignore it. The 
Law of Biogenesis, in fact, is to be regarded 
as the equivalent in biology of the First Law 
of Motion in physics: Lvery body continues 
in tts state of rest or of uniform motion in a 
straight line, except in so far as it is compelled 
by forces to change that state. The first Law 
of biology is: That which is Mineral is Min- 
eral; that which is Flesh is Flesh; that which 
is Spirit i is Spirit. The mineral remains in the 
inorganic world until it is seized upon by a 
something called Life outside the imorganic 
- world ; the natural man remains the natural 


natural life seizes upon him, regenerates him, 
‘changes him into aspiritualman. The peril of 
the illustration from the law of motion will 
not be felt at least by those who appreciate the 
distinction between Physics and Biology, be- 
tween Energy and Life. The change of state, 
here is not as in physics a mere change of direc- 
__ tion, the affections directed to a new ‘object, the 
_ will into a new channel. The change involves 

all this, but is something deeper. It is a 
_ shange of nature, a regeneration, a passing from 
death into life. Hence relatively to this higher 


_ CLASSIFICATION. ae 


wale and the Inorganic. Moral beauty is © 3 


And the whole fabric of Christianity falls into” 


man, until a Spiritual Life from without the 4 















362 CLASSIFICATION. — 


life the natural life is no longer Lite 
Death, and the natural man from the § ‘ 
point of Christianity is dead. Whatever ~ 
assent the mind may give to this proposition, — 
however much it has been overlooked in the ~~ 
past, however it compares with casual observa-_ 
tion, it is’ certain that the Founder of the Chris- > 
tian religion intended this to be the keystone —~ 
of Christianity. In the proposition That which ~~ 
ts flesh is flesh, and that which is spirit is bie 
Christ formulates the first law of biologica 
religion, and lays the basis for a final classifi- 
cation. Hedivides men into two classes, the 
living and the not-living. And Paul -after- | 
wards carries out the classification consistently, —~ 
making his entire system depend on it,and 
throughout arranging men, on the one hand as 
rvevparixd>—spiritual, on the other as guyazds— ~ 
earnal, in terms of Christ’s distinetion. om 
Suppose now it be granted fora moment 
that the character of the not-a-Christian is as 
beautiful as that of the Christian. This is ~ 
simply to say that the crystal is as beautiful 
as the organism. One is quite entitled to hold 
this ; but what heis not entitled to hold is 
that both in the same sense are living. He 
that hath the Son has Life, and he that hath not 
the Son of God has not Life. And im-the face 
of this law, no other conclusion is possible than 
that that which is flesh remains flesh. No 
matter how great the development of beauty, 
that which is flesh is withal flesh. 1 
elaborateness or the perfection of the moral 
development in any given instance ean do 


¥ 


Ve i ee 


> @LASSIFICATION. 368 


_ nothing to break down this distinction. Man 
is a moral animal, and can, and ought to, 





arrive at great natural beauty of character. 


_ But this is simply to obey the law of his nature 
_ —the law of his flesh ; and no progress along 
that line can project him into the spiritual 
sphere. If any one choose to claim that the 
mineral beauty, the fleshly beauty, the natural 
moral beauty, is all he covets, he is entitled to 
his claim. To be good and true, pure and 
benevolent in the moral sphere, are high, and, 
so far, legitimate objects of life. If he delib- 
erately stop here, he is at liberty todoso. But 
- what he is not entitled to do is to call himselia 


~~ Christian, or to claim to discharge the func- 


tions peculiar to the Christian life. His mor- 
ality is mere erystallization, the crystallizing 
forces having had fair play in his development. 
But these forces have no more touched the 
sphere of Christianity than the frost on the 
window-pane can do more than simulate the 
external forms of life. And if he considers 


‘that the high development to which he has - 


reached may pass by an insensible transition 
- into spirituality, or that his moral nature of it- 
self may flash into the flame of regenerate Life, 
he has to be reminded that in spite of the ap- 


parent connection of these things from one ~ 


standpoint, from another there is none at all, 
or none discoverable by us. On the one hand, 


_ there being no such thing as Spontaneous 


~ Generation, his moral nature, however it may 
_ eneourage it, cannot generate Life ; while, on 
_ the other, his high organization can never iF 





‘ 






















ie 
364 CLASSIFICATION, s 
itself, result in Life, Life being always the ea 
of organization and never the effect of it. — ‘ 
The practical question may now be asked,is 
this distinction palpable ? Is itamere conceit | 
of Science, or what human interests attach to 
it? Ifit cannot be proved that the resulting 
moral or spiritual beauty is higher in the one 
case than in the other, the biological distine-  — 
‘tion is useless. Andif the objection ispressed 
that the spiritual man has nothing further to 
effect in the direction of morality, seeing that — 
the natural man can successfully compete with 
him, the questions thus raised’ become of  — 
serious significance. That objection would cer- 
tainly be fatal which could show that the 
spiritual world was not as high in its demand ~ 
for a lofty morality as the natural; and that — 
biology would be equally false and dangerous ~ 
which should in the least encourage the view 
that “* without holiness ” a mancould “seethe ~ 
Lord.” These questions accordingly we must 
briefly consider. It is necessary to premise — 
however, that the difficulty is not peculiar to 
the present position. This is simply the old 
difficulty of distinguishing spirituality and 
morality. ' 
In seeking whatever light Science may have 
to offer as to the difference between the natural 
and the spiritual man, we first submit the 
question to Embryology. And if its actual 
contribution is small, we shall at least be in- 
debted to it for an important reason why the 
difficulty should exist at all. That there is 
grave difficulty in deciding between two given 


oe 


ie 


_ CLASSIFICATION. 


_ characters, the one natural, the other sniviiarads 
is conceded. ®ut if we can find a sufficient 

justification for so perplexing a circumstance, 
_ the fact loses weight as an objection, and the 
+ whole problem is placed on a different foot- 



























The difference on the score of beauty be- 
tween the crystal and the shell, let us say once 
_ more, is imperceptible. But fix attention for a 


_ their possibilities, upon their relation to the 
4 itare: and upon their place in evolution. The 
' erystal has reached its ultimate stage of devel- 


- itisnow. Take it to pieces and give it the 
opportunity to beautify itself afresh, and it 
will just do the same thing over again. It will 
form itself into a six-sided pyramid, and go on 


Aw aria 9 


- eae a hair’s-breadth. Its law of crystallization 
allows it to reach this limit, and nothing else _ 
‘within its kingdom can do any more for it. In 
_ dealing with the crystal, in short, we are deal-_ 
ing with the maximum beauty of ‘the inor ganic ~ 
world. Butin dealing with the shell, we are 
not dealing with the maximum ac):ievement of 
_ theorganic world. In itself it is one of the 
-~ hnmblest forms of the invertebrate sub-king- _ 
_ dom of the organic world; and there are other 
€ forms within this kingdom so different from 

_ the shell in a bundred respects that to mistake 
_ them would simply be impossible. 





4! moment, not upon their appearance, but upon | 


opment. Jt can never be more beautiful than © 


repeating this same form ad infinitum as often — 
¢ as it is dissolved, and without ever improving | 


In dealing with a man of fine moral char- > ¥ 


- 
m4 

. 

- 

M 

} 

‘ 











acter, acain, we are dealing with the S 
achievement of the organic kingdom. But in 
dealing with a spiritual man we are deali 
With the lowest form of life in the spiritual 
world. ‘fo contrast the two, therefore, and 
marvel that the one is apparently so little 
better than the other, is unseientific and un-  ~ 
just. The spiritual man is a mere unformed — 
embryo, hidden as yet in his earthly chrysalis- 
case, while the natural man has the,breeding — 
and evolution of ages represented in his char- 
acter. But what are the possibilities of this 
spiritual organism? What is yet toemerge © ~ 
from this chrysalis-case?. The natural char-  ~ 
acter finds its limits within the organic sphere. 
But who is to define the limits of the spiritual? 
Eyen now it is very beautiful. Even as an © 
embryo it contains some prophecy of its future » 
glory. But the point to mark is, that tt doth 
not yet appear what it shall be. CMI SS 
The want of organization, thus, does notsur-— 
prise us. All life begins at the Ameeboid stage. — 
Eyolution is from the simple to the complex; — 
and in every case it is some time before organ- 
ization is advanced enough to admit of exact 
elassification. A naturalist’s only serious 
difficulty in classification is when he comes — 
to deal with low or embryonic forms. It is 
impossible; for instance, to mistake an oak for 
an elephant; but at the bottom of the vege- 
table series, and at the bottom of the animal 
series, there are organisms of so doubtful a 
character that it.is equally impossible todis- 
tinguish them. So formidable, indeed, hag 










vie 
a 
tins fae 








c rata fakes, foe ms she eeuinedtae Vv ange acter 2 
which makes it impossible to apply the de- sad 
ermining tests... 
‘We mention this merely to show the aiff : 
lty” of classification and not for analogy; 
r the proper analogy is not between vege- 
able and animal forms, whether high or low, — — 
but between the living and the dead. And i 
here the difficulty is certainly not so great. 
By suitable tests it is generally possible to dis. 
nguish the organic from the inorganic. The 
» ordinary eye may fail to detect the difference, . 
nd innumerable forms are assigned by the 
popular judgment to the inorganic world which 
are nevertheless undoubtedly alive, Anditis 
‘the same in the spiritual world, Toa cursory | 
glance these rudimentary spiritual forms may ~~ 
not seem to exhibit the phenomena of Life,and 
nerefore the living and the dead may be often _ 
classed as bne. But let the appropriate scien- — 
ific tests be applied. In the almost amor- — 
phous organism, the physiologist ought already 
_ to be able to detect the symptoms of a dawning: | 
life. And further research might even bring _ 
to light. some faint indication of the lines along — 
which the future development was to proceed. — 
‘Now it is not impossible that among the tests — 
_ for Life there may be some which may fitlybe _ 
applied to the spiritual organism. We may — 
therefore at this point hand over the problem tes 
9 Physiology. os 
‘hi tests for Life are of two kinds. Tt is re 


































f 
% 


368" CLASSIFICATION. , 


markable that one of them was proposed, in- 


the spiritual sphere, by Christ. Foreseeing the 


difficulty of determining the characters and — 


functions of rudimentary organisms, He sug. 
gested that the point be decided by a further — 
evolution. Time for development was to be 
allowed, during which the marks of Life, if 
any, would become more pronounced, while iv. 
the meantime judgment was to be suspended, — 
“Let both grow together,” be said, “until the 
harvest.” This is a thoroughly scientific test. 
Obviously, however, it cannot assist us for the 
present—except in the way of enforcing ex» 
treine caution in attempting any classification 
at all. 

The second test is at least not so manifestly 
impracticable. It is toapply the ordinary meth: 


‘ods by which biology attempts to distinguish 
the organic from the inorganic. The charae: 


teristics of Life, according to Physiology, aré 
four in number—Assimilation, Waste, Repro- 
duction, and Spontaneous Action. If an or- 


ganism is found to exercise these functions, it — 


is said to be alive. Now these tests, in a 
spiritual sense, might fairly be applied to the 
spiritual man. The experiment would be a 
delicate one. It might not be open*to every 
one to attempt it. This is a scientific ques- 
tion; and the experiment would have to be 
conducted under proper conditions and by 
competent persons. But even on the first 
statement it will be plain to all who are famil- 
iar with spiritual diagnosis that the experi 


ment could be made, and especially on oneself, 


5 yr ae 













CLASSIFICATION. 369 

























some hope of success. Biological cen- 
srations, however, would warn us not to 
expect toomuch. Whatever be the inadequacy 
- of Morphology, Physiology can never be stud- 
ied apart from it; and the investigation of 
-function merely as function is a task of extreme 


_ have next to no power of tracing up the gen. 
esis of a function considered purely as a fune- 
_ tion—no opportunity of observing the pro- 
' gressively-increasing quantities of a given 


» isms. In nearly all cas2s we are able only to 
' establish the greater growth of the part which 
we have found performs the action, and to 
_ infer that greater action of the part has accom- 
panied greater growth of it.” + Such being 
_ the ease, it would serve no parpose to indicate 
_ the details of a barely possible experiment. 
’ Weare merely showing, at the moment, that 
- the question “ How do I know that Iam alive” 
_ is not, in the spiritual sphere, incapable of 
_ solution. One might, nevertheless, single out 
some distinctively spiritual function and ask 
himself if he consciously discharged it. The 
discharging of that function is, upon biological 
principles, equivalent to being alive, and there- 
_ fore the subject of the experiment could cer- 
jainly come to some conclusion as to his place 
on a biological scale. The real significance of 
his actions on the moral scale might be less 
sy to determine, but he could at least tell 


ta, ‘Principles of Biology,” vol. ii. pp. 222, 223, 





‘difficulty. Mr. Herbert Spencer affirms, “We 


- action that have arisen in any order of organ- ~ 











ee ir 
aie she: 








corres. nding with a Divine EN 


















life—he would know whether he 
dead. After all, the best test of I 
Yiving. And living consists, aS Wwe 
merly seen, in corresponding with 
ments. T hose therefore who find within them 
selves, .nd regularly exercise, the faculties. 


organism, ua “alhoay to hee ‘itself, to , 
others, is certainly what one would — expect. — ‘ 
Every organism has its own reaction pea = 
Nature, and the reaction of the ‘spiritual o. 
ganism upon the community must be fogkeea . 
for. In the absence of any stich reaction, in. : 
the absence of any token that it lived for a 
higher purpose, orithat its real interests wei 
those of the Kingdom to which it professed to Bk: 
belong, we should be entitled to question ait ; 
being in that Kingdom. It is obyious that ” 
each Kingdom has its own ends and interests, — is 
its own functions to perine : in Nattre. it 


esa at. And man’s place i in Nature, or his - 
position among the kingdoms, is to be decided — 
»y the characteristic functions habitually ~ 
discharged by him. Now when the habits of — 
certain individuals are closely observed, when — 
the total effect of their life and work, with ~ 
segard to the community, is gauged—as care- — 
fully observed and gauged as the influence of ~ 
certain individuals in a colony of ants might — 
be observed and gauged by Sir Jokn caper , 


371 


aght to be no difficulty. in deciding 
her they are living for the Organic or for 
Spiritual ; in plainer language, for the 
orld or for God. ‘The question of Kingdoms, 
st, would be settled without mistake 
ne place. of any given individual in his own 
cit ngdom is a different matter. That is a 
estion” possibly for ethics. But from the  ~ 
” iological standpoint, if a man is living forthe 
_ world it is immaterial how well he lives for it. 
po He ought to live well for it. However im- 
portant it is for his own Kingdom, it does not 
affect his biological relation to the other King- 
— dom whether his character is perfect or imper- 
> fect. Tle may even to some extent assume the 
“outward form of organism belonging to the 
> higher Kingdom; but so long as his “Yeaction 
~ upon the world is the reaction of his species, 
“he is to be classed with his species, so long as ao 
‘ he bent of his life is in the direction of the an] 
“world, he remains a worldling. ; 
~ Recent botanical and en tomological researches 
_tave*made Science familiar with what is «© — 
termed Mimicry. Certain organisms in one _ 
_ Kingdom assume, for purposes of their own, 
the ‘outward form of organisms belonging to 
another. This curious hypocrisy i is practised 
4G oth by plants and animals, the object being to 
secure some personal advantage, usually safety. 
which would be denied were the organism 1 
9 v sneha to play its partin Nature in propria 
Thus the Ceroxylus,luceratus of Bor- 
issumed so perfectly the disguise of a at, 



































= 


ge Le See RGR ON 





ree branch as to evade the attack of x. 
’ ye id 


a ee 






372 - CLASSIFICATION. — 


insectivorous birds ; and others of the paves ‘- | 
stick insects and leaf-butterflies practise similar — 


deceptions with great effrontery and success. 
It is a striking result of the indirect influence 


of Christianity, or of a spurious Christianity, — 
that the religious world has come to be popu- __ 


lated—how ‘largely one can scarce venture to 


think—with mimetic species. In few cases, 
probably, is this a conscious deception. In ~ 


many doubtless it is induced, as in Ceroxylus, 


by the desire for safety. But in a majority, of 


instances it is the natural effect of the prestige 
of a great system upon those who, coveting its 
benedictions, yet. fail to understand its true 
nature, or decline to bear its profounder re- 
sponsibilities. It is here that the test of Life 
becomes of supreme importance. No classifi- 
cation on the ground of form can exclude 


mimetic species, or discover them to them- 


selves. But if man’s place among the King- 
doms is determined by his functions, a careful 
estimate of his life in itself and in its reaction 
upon surrounding lives, ought at once to 
betray Ais real position. No matter what may 
be the moral uprightness of his life, the hon- 
orableaess of his-career, or the orthodoxy of 
his creed, if he exercises the function of loving 
the world, that defines his world—he belongs 
to the Organic Kingdom. He cannot in that 
case belong to the higher Kingdom. “Tf any 
man love the world, the love of the Father is 
not in him.” After all, it is by the general 
bent of a man’s life, by his heart-impulses and 
secres desires, his spontaneous actions and 






























al ding. motives, that his generation is de- 
_ elared. 
- _ The exclusiveness of Christianity, separation 
- from the world, uncompromising allegiance to 
he Kingdom of God, entire surrender of body, 
oul, and spirit to Christ—these are truths 
i which rise into prominence from time to time, 
become the watchword of insignificant parties, 
_ rouse the church to attention and the world to 
__ opposition, and die down ultimately for want 
- of lives to live them. The few enthusiasts 
' who distinguish in these requirements the 
essential conditions of entrance into the King- 
~ dom of Christ are overpowered by the weight 
- of numbers, who see nothing more in Christi- 
--anity than a mild religiousness, and who de- 
mand nothing more in themselves or in their 
 fellow-Christians than the participation in a 
- conyentional worship, the acceptance of tradi- 
- tional beliefs, and the living of an honest life. 
Yet nothing is more certain than that the 
_ enthusiasts are right. Any impartial survey 
- —such as the unique analysis in “ Ecce Homo” 
_ —of the claims of Christ and of the nature of 
- His society, will convince any one who cares 
to. make the inquiry of the outstanding differ- 
- ence between the system of Christianity in 
_ the original contemplation and its represent- 
ations in modern life. Christianity. marks 
the advent of what i is simply a new Kingdom. | 


fundamental. It demands from its members 
activities and responses of an altogether novel 
i order. . Itis, in the conception of its Founder, 





os nie he pee 














374 CLASS #LUAT LE 


a Kingdom for which all its adherents 
henceforth exclusively live and work 
which opens its gates alone upon those © 
having counted the cost, are prepared to. foll 
it if need be to the death. The surrend 
Christ demanded ‘was absolute. Every as 
rant for membership must seek first the King- 
dom of God. And in order to enforee the ~ 
demand of allegiance, or rather with an uncon- 
sciousness which contains the finest evidence 
for its justice, He even assumed the title of 
King—a claim which in other cireumstances, 
and were these not the symbols of a higher 
royalty, seems so strangely foreign to one who 

is meek and lowly in heart. 

But this imperious claim of a Kingdom 0 ny 
its members is not peculiar to Christianity. 
It is the law in all departments of Nature that — 
every organism must live for its Kingdom. 
And in defining living for the higher King 
dom as the condition of living in it, Christ — 
enunciates a principle which all Nature has 
prepared us to expect. Every province has its 
peculiar exactions, every Kingdom levies upon 
its subjects the tax of an exclusive obedience, 
and punishes disloyalty always with death. 
It was the neglect of this principle—that every 
organism must live for its Kingdom if it is to 
live in it—which first slowly depopulated the 
spiritual world. The example of its Founder 
ceased to find imitators, and the ‘consecration — 
of His early followers came to be regarded ag — 
a superfluous enthusiasm. And itis this same — 
misconception of the fundamental principle — 




























Beis see 
| CLASSIFICATION. 375 


of all Kingdoms that has deprived modern 
» Christianity of its vitality. The failure to re- 
'-gard the exclusive claims of Christ as more 

“than accidental, rhetorical, or ideal; the fail- 
© ure to discern the essential difference between 

his Kingdom and all other systems based on 
/the lines of natural religion, and therefore 
» merely Organic; in a word, the general neglect 
* of the claims of Christ as the Founder of a 
' new and higher Kingdom—these have taken 
» the very heart from the religion of Christ and 
) left its evangel without pewer to Impress or 
' bless the world. Until even religious men see 
© the uniqueness of Christ’s society, until they 
- acknowledge to the full extent its claim to be 






continue the hopeless attempt to live for two 
| Kingdoms atonce. And hence the value ofa 
- more explicit Classification. For probably the 
most of the difficulties of trying to live the 
“Christian life arise from attempting to half- 
live it. 
’ As a merely verbal matter, this identification 
) of the Spiritual World with what are ‘known 
‘to Science as Kingdoms, necessitates an ex- 
) planation. The suggested relation of the 
» Kingdom of Christ to the Mineral and Animal 
5 gdom does not, of course, depend upon 
» the accident that the Spiritual World is named 
“m the sacred writings by the same word. 
This certainly lends an appearance of fancy 
tothe generalization: and one feels tempted 
at first fo dismiss it with a smile. But, in 
truth, it is no mere play on the word Kingdom. 


" nothing less than a new Kingdom, they will 





316 


Science demands the classification of every 
organism. And here is an organism of a 
unique kind, a living energetic spirit, a new 
creature which, by an act of generation, has” 
been begotten of God. Starting from the point 
that the spiritual life is to be studied bio- 
logically, we must at once proceed, as the first — 
step in the scientific examination of this ergan- — 
ism, to enter it in its appropriate class. Now 
two Kingdoms, at the present time, are known 
to Science—the Inorganic and the Organic. 
It does not belong to the Inorganic Kingdom, 
because it lives. It does not belong to the 
Organic Kingdom, because it is endowed with 
a kind of Life infinitely-removed from either 
the vegetal or animal. Where then shall it be 
classed? We are left without an alternative. 
There being no Kingdom known to Science — 
which can contain it, we must construct one. 
Or rather we must include in the programme 
of Science a Kingdom already constructed but 
the place of which in science has not yet been 
recognized. That Kingdomis the Kingdom of 
God, 
Taking now this larger view of the content — 
of science, we may leave the case of the individ- 
ual and pass on to outline the scheme of Nature — 
asa whole. The general conception will be as — 
follows :-— 
First, we find at the bottom of everything ~ 
the Mineral or Inorganic Kingdom. Its charac- _ 
teristics are, first, that so far as the sphere — 
above it is concerned it is dead; second, that 
although dead it furnishes the physical basis of 




























é CLA SSIFICA TION. 


Ddi7 


Ye. lif to i es Kingdom next in order. It is thus 
oe bsolutely essential to the Kingdom above it. 
_. And the more minutely the detailed structure 
and ordering of the whole fabric are invest- 
gated it becomes increasingly apparent that 
the Inorganic Kingdom is the preparation for, 
and the prophecy of, the Organic. 

Second, we come to the w ‘orld next in anders 
he world containing plant, and animal, and 
man, the Organic Kingdom. Its characteristics 
are, first, that so far as the sphere above it is 
neerned it is dead; and, second, although 
ead it supplies in turn the basis of life to the 
Kingdom next-in order. And the more mi- 
uutely the detailed structure and ordering of 
e whole fabric are investigated, it is obvious, 
- inturn, that the Organic Kingdom i is the prep- 
aration for, and the prophecy of, the Spirit- 
: i ual. 
Third; and highest, we reach the Spiritual 
e ingdom, or the Kingdom of Heaven. What 
_ its characteristics are, relatively to any hypo- 
_ thetical higher Kingdom, _hecessar ily remain 


Be the preparation for, ahi the pr sphieey of, 
omething still higher is not impossible. But 
he very conception ofa Fourth Kingdom tran- 
ends us, and if it exist, the Spir itual or ganism, 
y the analogy, must remain at present wholly 
ead toit. 

_ The warrant for adding this Third Kingdom 
onsists, as just stated, in the fact that there 
organisms which from their peculiar origin, 
Gul pad destiny cannot be fitly entered in 








ts 


me 


st, 


















once-born organisms. The 
in by the appearance, among these 
organisms, of forms of life which ha 
born again—twice-born organisms. The ¢ 
fication, therefore, is based, front the si ; 
side on certain facts of embryology and on the 
Law of Biogenesis; and from the t ca. 

side on certain facts of experience and 
doctrine of Regeneration. To those w 











is no escape from a Third Kingdom,* 

There is, in this conception of a 
spiritual organism rising out of the hi 
point of the Organic Kingdom, i in the hypoth 
~ esis of the Spiritual Kingdom itself, a Ph r 
+. Kingdom following the Second i in sequence as 




















: Philosophical classifications in this di 
‘ instance Godet’s “Old Testament Studies,’ 
Kt owing to their neglect of the faets of Bio; \ 
he never r satisfy the biologist—any more than the aboye 
wholly satisfy the philosopher. Both are needed. 
Rothe in his “ Aphorisms, strikingly notes one point 
“ Es ist beachtenswerth, wie in der Schopfung immer 
der Anflésung der nachst niederen Stufe die nachst hohere 
hervorgeht, so dass jene immer das Substrat zur Erzeu- 
gung dieser Kraft der schdpferischen Ein wir: Dildet. 
(Wie es denn nicht anders sein kann bei einer ntwick- 
lung der Kreatur aus sich selbst.) Aus den zersetzten 
Elementen erheben sich das Mineral, aus dem verwitter- 
. ten Material die Pflanze, aus der verwesten Pflanze. 
ts ‘Thier. So erhebt sich auch aus dem in die Elemente 
~ zuriicksinkenden Materiellen Menschen der Ge i to 
i? geistige Geschipf.”’—“‘ Stille Stunden,”’ p. 64, 








tilizing ie materials of both the King- 
ns beneath it, continuing their laws, and, 
ibove a accounting for these lower Kingdoms 
na legitimate way and complementing them 
n the only known way—there is in all this a 
Suggestion of the gr eatest of modern scientific 

doctrines, the Evolution ‘hypothesis, too im- 
ressive to passunnoticed. The strength of the 
< etrine of Evolution, at least in its br oder out- 
es, is now such that its verdict on any biologi- 
questionis a consideration of moment. And 
any further defence is needed for the idea 
of a Third Kingdom it may be found in the 
singular harmony of the whole conception with 

is great modern truth. It might even be 
asked whether a complete and consistent 
theory of Evolution does not really demand 
uch a conception? Why should Evolution 
stop with the Organic? It is surely obvious 
the complement of Evolution is Advolu- 
tion, and the inquiry, Whence has all this 
ystem of things come, is, after all, of minor 
importance compared with the question, 
hither does all this tend? Science, as such, 









































And it i8 s perhaps impossible, with eae facul- 
ties as we how possess, to imagine an Evolution 
“ya a future as great asits past. So stupend- 


an that no point can be fixed inthe futureas 
tant from what man is nowashe is fromthe — 
atom. Butit has been given to Christianity to — 
di Bel ahe lines of a further Evolution. And 








380 | CLASSIFICATION, 


if Science also professes to offer a further Evol 
tion, not the-most sanguine evolutionist w 
venture to contrast it, either as regards the dig 






nity of its methods, the magnificence of its 
aims, or the certainty of its hopes, with the pros- 


pects of the Spiritual Kingdom. That Science — 


in 


has a prospect of some sort to hold out tomanis — 


not denied. But its limits are already marked: 


Mr. Herbert Spencer, after investigating, its - 


possibilities fully, tells us, “Evolution has an 
impassable limit.”? It is the distinct claim of 


the third Kingdom that this limit is not final. ~ 
Christianity opens a way to a further develop- 


ment—a development apart from which the ~ 
magnificent past, of Nature has been in vain, — 


and without which Organic Evolution, in spite 
of the elaborateness of its processes and the 
vastness of its achievements, is - simply a 


stupendous cul de sac. Far as Nature carries — 


on the task, vast as is the-distance between 


the atom and the man, she has to lay down her 
tools when the work is just begun. Man, her 


most rich and finished product, marvellous in 
his complexity, all but Divine in sensibility, is 
to the Third Kingdom not even a shapeless 
embryo. The old chain of processes must 
begin again on the higher plane if there is to 
be a further Evolution. The highest organism 
of the Second Kingdom—simple, immobile, 
dead as the inorganic crystal, towards the 
sphere above—must be vitalized afresh. Then 
from a mass of all but homogeneous “pro- 


1“ First Principles,’ p. 440. 








1” “the organism must pass through all 
ages of differentiation and integration, 
ving in perfectness and beauty under 
he unfolding of the higher Evolution, until it 
reaches the Infinite Complexity, the Infinite 
Sensibility, God. So the spiritual carries on the 
rvellous process to which all lower Nature 
ministers, and perfects it when the ministry of 
lower Nature fails. | 

_ This conception of a further Evolution carries 
ith it the final answer to the charge that, as 
gards morality, the Spiritual world has noth- 
@ to-offer man that is not already within his 
ach. Will it be contended that a perfect 
















natural man? What product of the organic 
creation has ever attained to the fulness of the 
‘stature of Him who is the Founder and Type 
of the Spiritual Kingdom? What do men 
‘know of the qualities enjoined in His Beati- 
udes, or at what value do they even estimate 
_ them? Proved by results, it is surely already 
decided that on merely natural lines moral 
erfection is unattainable. And even Science 
is beginning to waken to the momentous truth 
hat Man, the highest product of the Organic 
ingdom, is a disappointment. But even were 
otherwise, if even in prospect the hopes of 
he Organic Kingdom could be justified, its 
standard of beauty is not so high, nor, in spite 
of the dreams of Evolution, is its guarantee 
‘so certain. The goal of the organisms of the 
Spiritual World is nothing less than this—to 

ve “ holy as He is holy, and pure as He is pure.” 


' morality is already within the reach of the. 












































_ reached. 



















CLA SsIFICATION. 
And by the Law of Confor mity’ 
final perfection issecured. Thein 
must develop out according to its Typ 
the consummation of oneness: with — 


These proposals of the Spiritual Kingd 
the direction of Evolution are at least entit 
to be carefully considered by Science. — 
ianity defines tlie highest conceivable future 
mankind. It. satisfies the Law of Contim i 
It guarantees the necessary conditions — 

carrying on the organism successfully, 
stage to stage. It provides against the te 
dency to Degeneration. And fifially, instead 
of limiting the yearning hope of final perfectio 
to the organisms of a future age,—an age | 
remote that the hope for thousands of years — 
must still be hopeless,—instead of inflicting — 
this cruelty on intelligences mature enough to — 
know perfection and earnest enough to wish ie : 
Christianity puts the prize within immedia 
reach of man. , 

This attempt to iheorporate the ‘Sp iritual 
Kingdom in the scheme of Evolution, may be 
met by what seems at first sight-a fatal ob- — 
jection. So far from the idea of a Spiritual 
Kingdom being in harmony with the doetrine 
of Evolution, it may be said that itis violently — 
opposed to it. It announces a new Kingdom — 
starting off suddenly on a different plane and 
in direct violation of the primary principle of — 
development. Instead of carrying the organic — 
evolution further on its own lines, theology at 
a given point. interposes a sudden ‘nd hopes 



























r—the barrier between the natural 
i the spiritual—and insists that the evolu- 
Ho pary process must begin again at the begin- 
‘ ing. At this point, in fact, Nature acts per 
saltum. This is no Evolution, but a Catas- 
trophe—such a Catastrophe as must be fatal to 
ly consistent development hypothesis. 

On the.surface this objection seems final— 
fy but it is only on the surface. It arises from 
taking a too narrow view of what Evolution 
a>. It. takes evolution in zoology for Evolu- 
on asa whole. Evolution began, let us say, 
ith some primeval nebulous mass in which 
| lay potentially all future worlds. Under the 
evolutionary hand, the amorphous cloud broke 
up, cortdensed, took definite shape, and in the 
line of true development assumed a gradually 
increasing complexity. Finally there emerged 
the cooled and finished earth, highly differ- 


"ube 


entiated, so to) speak, complete and fully 


je observed—a Catastrophe. Instead of 
the process further, the Evolution, if 
‘volution, here also abruptly stops. A 
sudden and hopeless barrier—the barrier be- 
tween the Inorganic and the Organic—inter- 
_ poses, and the process has to begin again ati 
the beginning with the creation of Lifer Here 
ot is'a barrier placed by Science at the close 

ud Inorganic similar to the barrier placed 
i Theology at the close of the Organic. 
mee has used every effort to abolish this 
er, but there it still stands challeng- 


equipped. And what followed? Let it be — 





°e 
¢ 














384 CLaSSIFICATIO. f 
no consistent theory of Evolution can fail to 
reckon with it. Any objection, then, to the 
Catastrophe introduced by Christianity be-— 
tween the Natural and the Spiritual Kingdoms 
applies with equal force against the barrier — 
which Science places between the Inorganic ~ 
and the Organic. The reserye of Life in 
either case is a fact, and a fact of exceptional 
significance. ; 
What then becomes of Evolution? Do 
these two great barriers destroy it? By no 
means. But they make it necessary to frame 
a larger doctrine. And the doctrine gains in~ 
measurably by such an enlargement. For now 
the case stands thus: Evolution, in harmony 
with its own law that progress is from the 
simple to the complex, begins itself to pass — 
towards the complex. The materialistic Evo- — 
lution, so to speak, is a straight line. Making 
all else complex, it alone remains simple—un- — 
scientifically simple. Butas Evolution unfolds 
everything else, it is now seen to be itself 
slowly unfolding. The straightline is coming 
out gradually in curves. At a given point a 
new force Suizers deflecting it; and at another 
given point a new force appears deflecting that. 
These points are not unrelated points; these — 
forces are not unrelated forces.. The arrange- 


* . ment is still harmonious, and the development 
' throughout obeys the evolutionary law in be. 
- ing from the general to the special, from the 


lower to the higher. What we are reaching, 


‘in short, is nothing less than the evolution of 


Evolution. 








seas to Sa this Ginunment of Evo- 
tion is important. And, on the part of 
Christianity, the contribution to the system of — 
Nature of a second barrier is of real scientific 
‘alue. At first it may seem merely to increase 
he difficulty. But in reality it abolishes it. 
However paradoxical it seems, it is neverthe- 
ess the case that'two barriers are more easy 
to understand than one,—two mysteries are 
less mysterious than a single mystery. For 
t requires two to constitute a harmony. One 
by itself is a Catastrophe. But, just as the 
ecurrence of an eclipse at different periods 
makes an eclipse no breach of Continuity ; just 
as the fact that the astronomical conditions | 
“necessary to cause a Glacial Period will in the 
remote future again be fulfilled constitutes the 
Great Ice Age a normal phenomenon; so the 
_ yecurrence of two periods associated with _ 
‘ at, phenomena of Life, the second higher, _ 






















tion of the principle of Evolution, Thus even 
_ in the matter of adding a second to the one 
bartier of Nature, the Third Kingdom may al- 
"-yeady claim to complement the Science of the 
Second. The overthrow of Spontaneous Gen- 
eration has left a break in Continuity which 
aie ntinues to put Science to confusion. Alone, 
is as abnormal and perplexing to the intellect 
the first eclipse. But if the Spiritual King- _ 
_ dom can supply Science witha companion-phe- 
nomenon, the most exceptional thing in the 
ientific sphere falls within the domain of 











386 





hres oie 
How much more in the “aden RMAs i 
might be explained or illuminated upon this 
principle, however tempting might be the in- 
quiry, we cannot turn. aside to ask, Bae the | 


Peciikion implies that it holds the ‘key tom 
much that is obscure in the world around— 7 
much that; apart. from. it, must always) 
remain obscure. A single obvious. instance of 
will. serve to illustrate the fertility of the © 
method. What has this Kingdom to con- 
tribute to Science with regard to the problem — 
of the origin of Life itself? ? Taking this as an — 
isolated phenomenon, neither the Second King- 
dom, nor the Third, apart from revelation, has 
_ anything to pronounce. But when we observe > 
the companion-phenomenon in the higher 
Kingdom, the question is simplified. It will 
be disputed by none that the source of Life in 
the Spiritual World is God. And as the same — 
Law of Biogenesis prevails im both spheres, we 
may reason from the higher to the lower and 
affirm it to be at least likely that the origin ie 
life there has been the same. 
There remains yet one other objection of a 
somewhat different order, and which is only — 
referred to because it is certain to be raised by 
those who fail to wh Lcnagi agit the esau aes of 











DP dices the i loeaticn of so high an organism 
1s man to the merely vegetal and animal King- 





intellectual distinctions between him and even 
the highest animal, they would introduce a 
third barrier between man and animal—a bar- 
rier even greater than that between the Inor- 
anic and the Organic. Now, no science can 
) blind to these distinctions. The only ques- 
ion is whether they are of such a kind as to 
make it necessary to classify man in a separate 
Kingdom. And to this the answer of Science 
is in the negative. Modern Science knows 
nly two Kingdoms—the Inorganic and the 
Organic. <A barrier between man and animal 
there may be, but it is a different barrier from 
that, which separates Inorganic from Organic. 
But even were this to be denied, and in : spite 
of all science it will be denied, it would make 
h “no difference as regards the eeneral question, | 
would merely interpose another Kingdom 
between the Organic and the Spiritual, the 
ae 

_ other relations remaining as before. Any one, 
therefore, with a theory to support as to the 
exceptional creation of the Human Race will 
d the present classification elastic enough 
























fit chooses. It is only contended that this is 
the order demanded by Biology. To add 
another Kingdom mid-way between the Or- 


dom. Recognizing the immense moral and ; 1 














or his purpose. Philosophy, of course, may 7 





ge ¢ and the Spiritual, could that be justified a ea 











388 _ CLASSIFICATION, 


at any future time on scientific saci Ss, W 
be a mere question of further detail. ‘ 
Studies in Classification, beginning with 
considerations of quality, usually end with 
a reference to quantity. And though one if 
would willingly terminate the inquiry on the 
threshold of such a subject, the example of — 
Revelation not less than the analogies of 
Nature press for at least a general statement. _ 
The broad impression gathered from the ut- _ 
terances of the Founder of the Spiritual King- 
dom is that the number of organisms to be in- 
cluded in it is to be comparatively small, 
The outstanding characteristic of the new So-— 
ciety is to be its selectness.. “Many are called,” 
said Christ, “‘ but few are chosen.” And when 


one recalls, on the one hand, the conditions of 


membership, and, on the other, observes the — 
lives and aspirations of average men, the force 
of the verdict becomes apparent. In its bear- . 
ing upon the general question, such a conclu- 4 
sion. is not without suggestiveness. Here | 
again is another evidence of the radical nature _ 
of Christianity. That “few are chosen” indi- — 
eates a deeper view of the relation of Christ's 
Kingdom to the world, and stricter qualifica- 
tions of. membership, than lie on the surface or | 
are allowed for in the ordinary practice uf 
religion. 
The analogy of Nature upon this point is — 
not less striking—it may be added, not less ~ 
solemn. It is an open secret, to be readina ~ 
hundred analogies from the world around, that” 
of the millions of possible entrants for advance. 





























ultimately selected for preferment is small. 
Here also “many are called and few are_ 
ehosen.” The analogies from the waste of 
_ seed, of pollen, of human lives, are too familiar 
e to. be quoted. In certain details, possibly, 
' these comparisons are inappropriate. But 
' there are other analogies, wider and more just, 
- which strike deeper into the system of Nature. 
_ A comprehensive view of the whole field of 
_ Nature discloses the fact that the circle of the 
a ehosen slowly contracts as we rise in the scale 


vegetable; some vegetable, but not all, becomes 
animal; some animal, but not all, becomes 


_ Divine. Thus the area narrows. At the base 
is the mineral, most broad and simple; the 
spiritual at the apex, smallest, but most highly — 





quality increases. 


Nature towards quality is surely a phenomenon ~ 
_ of commanding interest. And if among the — 
_ more recent revelations of Nature there is one — 
thing more significant for Religion than an- © 
6) 0 other, it is the “majestic spectacle of the rise of — 
Kingdoms towards scarcer yet nobler forms, — 
and simpler yet diviner ends. Of the early 


__-with reserve. The second, the evolution of 
ach Aaoryrpsags from the simple protoplasmic — 


CLASSIFICATION. 389 — 


ee in any department of Nature the number a 


of being. Some mineral, but rot all, becomes — 


differentiated. So form rises above form, King- 
dom above Kingdom. Quantity decreases as bb 





4, 


ee _ human, some human, but not all, becomes 


= 


ey 





The gravitation of the whole system of ¢ ‘ 


os 


24 . 


stage, the first development of the earth from we : 
; the nebulous matrix of space, Science speaks ~ , 
































cell to the formed adult, is proved. The st H 
wider evolution, not of solitary indi Sy 
but of all the individuals within each 


eryptogam to the highest phanerogam, 
animal world from the amorphous amoeb 
Man—is at least suspected, the gradual ri: 
types being at all events a fact. But now, 
last, we see the Kingdoms themselves evolvin 
And that supreme law which has 
development from simple to complexi in m 
in individual, in sub-Kingdom, and in Kingd 
until only two or three great Kingdoms 
main, now begin at the beginning again, dire 
ing the evolution of these million-peopled worl 
as if they were simple cells or or 
Thus, what applies to the individual applie 
the family, what applies to the family app. 
to the Kingdom, what applies to the Kingdo 
applies to the Kingdoms. And so, out oft 
infinite complexity. there rises an infinite sim- 
plicity, the foreshadowing of a final unity, of 
that ey ‘ 
“One God, one law, one element, Pe ia 


And one far-off divine event, = 
To which the whole creation moves.”?? 


This is the final triumph of Continuity, the 
heart secret of Creation, the unspoken pro-_ 
phecy of Christianity. To Science, defining it~ 
as a working principle, this mighty process of ‘ 
amelioration is simply Evolution. ‘o Christi- A 
anity, discerning the end ‘through the Sev, F, 


1‘*Tn Memoriam.” 


v ii MATES P “es bs 











3 “CLASSIFI CATION. 291 


Redemption, These silent and patient 
ses, elaborating, eliminating, developing _ 
Il from the first of time, conducting the evolu- f 
tion from millennium to millennium with un- 
altering purpose and unfaltering power, are the 
ly stages in the redemptive work—the un- 
een approach of that Kingdom whose strange 
4 mark i is that it “ cometh without observation.” 
And these Kingdoms rising na bees tier in 

ver increasing sublimity a ty; their, 

Mipandatione visibly fixed in és past, their pto- | h 
: 0! and the direction of. their progress, bei Ay 
4) facts i in Nature still, are. the signs which, since’. - 
e Magi saw His star i in the Hest, have, ever 
en wanting from the firmament of and 
which in every age with perc clearness 
the wise, and with ever-gatherin ne mystery les 


he uninitiated, ‘Seah eoconti “the ies: M i i 
pf God is at hand.” Pa 













pCeE MASK. 


\ 1 ail On 


x re? 
“ ¢ 
Seeaure? 


ke 


7 pH 








Date Due 





WAY 15 ‘56 











vii 





